Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017 Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020153

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
The Prime Minister has just announced a general election on June 8th. Assuming she can get it through parliament, what's going to happen?

She's just moaned about how everyone else in Westminster (other parties, Lords etc) are all divided over Brexit. So no prizes for guessing what the focus will be.

Putting the motion before the house tomorrow....
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I really really hope there is some kind of electoral pact between the Libdems, the SNP, PC to stand against the Tories.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
She's just said it will either be a Conservative majority, or a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems and possibly everyone else....

She'd better hope she doesn't end up needing a coalition herself.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O god....as though there isn't enough bad news all round the world already.

No doubt Mrs. Maybe-Maybe-Knott is hoping for an Erdogan-style victory, but, if the gods are kind (if gods there be), her wretched party will actually lose.

I live in hope, not much, but some...

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
What we need now is for everyone to decide where they stand - and to have honest manifestos which actually reflect the candidates who are standing.

No more anti-Brexit Tories. No more Brexit Labour or wavering SNP. If you can't support the manifesto, kindly get off the voting paper.

Let's have parties standing for Brexit or non-Brexit not some stupid fudge where nobody has any idea who believes in what.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Can someone explain how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act applies? I understand it requires a two thirds vote in favour of an election, and I'm pretty sure the Tories don't have that many seats.

...although they might after the election.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think Labour have indicated they'll support.

I'd be pretty stupid for anyone to vote against a GE.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Can someone explain how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act applies? I understand it requires a two thirds vote in favour of an election, and I'm pretty sure the Tories don't have that many seats.

...although they might after the election.

Corbyn had previously said he would support it. If he decides he doesn't want an election, he'll be pilloried for bottling out for the rest of the term.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Gerald Kaufman's successor in Manchester is supposed to be elected on 4th May. So whoever wins that - do they have to stand again a few weeks later, or do they just get elected and wait around for a few weeks until everyone else is in?
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
Dear other political parties in Scotland,

Please pull your collective fingers out and manage to make a decent showing against the SNP.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Why? Labour are in disarray. They are likely to lose dozens of seats to the Tories. The Lib Dems, the biggest danger to the Tories in the south, have hardly started rebuilding. They could regain the SW London seats but little else and they could in fact help the Tories by attracting Labour voters alienated by Corbyn. The Tories will probably regain Clacton from UKIP, if Douglas Carswell doesn't return to the fold anyway. They will probably eliminate the UKIP vote: it's been sliding for months. The Tories could even pick up a few extra seats in Scotland.

Basically, unless something very surprising happens, the result will allow Theresa May to conduct Brexit negotiations with an absolute monster majority at her back. That being so, I would have thought it would be more in Labour's interest to tell her to get on with the job and stop buggering around. Labour will be toast.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O god....as though there isn't enough bad news all round the world already.

No doubt Mrs. Maybe-Maybe-Knott is hoping for an Erdogan-style victory, but, if the gods are kind (if gods there be), her wretched party will actually lose.

I live in hope, not much, but some...

IJ

UKIP may play its part. The government has entered negotiations with the EU but having announced an election it can't continue those as there is now the possibility that a different kind of government is returned. If it does turn into a Leave/Return fight with the Tories and UKIP in the Leave camp then it is essential for the other parties to defeat them by identifying the likeliest party to defeat the Tory/Ukipper and supporting them, constituency by constituency. Not pretty, not a long term solution but just about the only way to stop the Tories, undo Brexit and reverse the damage done by seven years of lies and toadying to wealth and corporate interests.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Why? Labour are in disarray. They are likely to lose dozens of seats to the Tories. The Lib Dems, the biggest danger to the Tories in the south, have hardly started rebuilding. They could regain the SW London seats but little else and they could in fact help the Tories by attracting Labour voters alienated by Corbyn. The Tories will probably regain Clacton from UKIP, if Douglas Carswell doesn't return to the fold anyway. They will probably eliminate the UKIP vote: it's been sliding for months. The Tories could even pick up a few extra seats in Scotland.

I think this possibly miscalculates the level of anti-Tory and anti-Brexit feeling in the country. Corbyn clearly has to now come out against Brexit to stand any chance of winning, but I think if the other parties work together they've got a good chance of taking out Tory marginals.

quote:
Basically, unless something very surprising happens, the result will allow Theresa May to conduct Brexit negotiations with an absolute monster majority at her back. That being so, I would have thought it would be more in Labour's interest to tell her to get on with the job and stop buggering around. Labour will be toast.
In some senses here, May is banking on the disarray. I'd say a minority of Tories really support the kind of hard Brexit being pushed by IDS and the other arsewipes, never mind Labour MPs and never mind the rest of the country.

So this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for MPs to take a good hard look in the mirror and decide what it is that they stand for.

Saying that the game is over before it has started is wrong. This isn't over until it is over and May has opened the door to stopping the Brexit madness.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
May could also make a big show of "no IndyRef 2" in this election as well.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Can someone explain how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act applies? I understand it requires a two thirds vote in favour of an election, and I'm pretty sure the Tories don't have that many seats.

...although they might after the election.

Corbyn had previously said he would support it. If he decides he doesn't want an election, he'll be pilloried for bottling out for the rest of the term.
He's just said he "welcomes" the decision; so presumably it'll go through Parliament no problems tomorrow.

(Can't help wondering if the anti-Corbyn MPs will be hoping that this election will be the time when they're able to get rid of him...)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
My guess is that if there is a pact then seats can be taken off the Tories with few casualties from Labour. Given the internal squabbling in Labour, I doubt they'd join an anti-Brexit pact with the other parties, so I think there is a chance that Tories get most seats but no overall majority and can't get anyone to support their hard-Brexit bollocks in coalition.

The other parties might have a majority overall but find it impossible to form a coalition because of the civil war inside the Labour party.

So I think a likely scenario is a minority Tory administration which can't get support for Brexit and so which rapidly falls. If the other parties can get their act together in this period of uncertainty they should be able to do enough to vote out all the Brexit nonsense before another election is called.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Whatever the Tory majority (and even if the other parties get their act together I reckon thy will get c 400 seats) Britain will still get a lousy deal.

I don't think so. I think there are a fairly significant number of Tory MPs in seats which voted Remain, so it'll be down to other parties to try to capture that vote and show that a vote for the Tories is a vote for the hardest of hard Brexits.

In contrast, the Labour seats that voted Leave are very unlikely to go Tory - because they're also the seats which have been impacted most by austerity. Despite their bluster, even UKIP have failed to make much headway in any of these places.

So I imagine that the Labour Leave seats will very likely reelect Labour with a much reduced turnout, the Tories will come under pressure in the Remain seats and the chances of a larger Tory majority is much reduced.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Can someone explain how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act applies? I understand it requires a two thirds vote in favour of an election, and I'm pretty sure the Tories don't have that many seats.

...although they might after the election.

Corbyn had previously said he would support it. If he decides he doesn't want an election, he'll be pilloried for bottling out for the rest of the term.
He's just said he "welcomes" the decision; so presumably it'll go through Parliament no problems tomorrow.

(Can't help wondering if the anti-Corbyn MPs will be hoping that this election will be the time when they're able to get rid of him...)

One MP in this area, Labour's Chris Matheson of Chester, has just said he will vote against an election. But he has the smallest majority in the house (I think) or less than 100...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
One MP in this area, Labour's Chris Matheson of Chester, has just said he will vote against an election. But he has the smallest majority in the house (I think) or less than 100...

I think we'll be seeing several Labour MPs falling on their swords by the end of the day, and if we're lucky also some Tories.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
On my recent trip back, it struck me just how little Brexit was being discussed. I really didn't get the feeling that it was uppermost in people's minds. That being so, I would be surprised if there were any pacts, whether the public would have any patience with them, and anyway, who between?

Perhaps the only real question is whether it would take a repeat of 1931 to get Corbyn out of the way.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
The thing is, though, the Tories are generally much more focussed on getting into or keeping hold of power: when it comes to the crunch, they're much more likely to put ideological divides behind them and seek to win power (they even dumped their most successful PM in order to make sure they didn't lose the next general election). Given the current poll numbers, given that only 1 Tory MP voted against triggering Article 50, I'd be very surprise if party loyalty didn't trump Brexit concerns, and the Tories didn't get a decent majority. [Waterworks]

ETA: cross-posted with Cod

[ 18. April 2017, 11:08: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Mr Cheesy - what about Copeland?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know how accurate these numbers are, but I read that of 231 constituencies which voted Remain, 83 were Tory.

If I was doing political strategy, that'd be the ones where I'd be targeting my anti-Brexit resources.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Mr Cheesy - what about Copeland?

Mm. I'd bet that'll be turned around again. I don't believe that byelections often indicate a fundamental change of political force in an area - the reality is that Tories policies are bad for poor people.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
The SNP in Scotland will now have a lot of issues to consider, and may well lose seats.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Another problem for my Countrymen (and Women) in Northern Ireland. Now they don't have 2 Governments, - and maybe 2 Elections.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think Labour have indicated they'll support.

I'd be pretty stupid for anyone to vote against a GE.

It's pretty dumb for the current Labour party to rush into an Election.

But they have to say they are 'ready whenever' even if they are obviously not.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
IMO, a GE on a single issue focus is an incredibly bad idea.

So, if we vote in an anti-Brexit (or, at least, an anti-Mays-vision-of-Brexit) government - be that a Labour lead coalition, or a Tory government needing support from others wanting a softer Brexit, or whatever - are we then stuck with that government for the next 5 years regardless of their policies on all the other issues? Or, can we have a GE now to sort out Brexshit and then have one on the scheduled date in 2020 to elect representatives for the rest of the work of Parliament?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
It's pretty dumb for the current Labour party to rush into an Election.

But they have to say they are 'ready whenever' even if they are obviously not.

Agreed, but obviously you can't really legitimately refuse to fight an election when your opponent has called it. Because that's tacitly admitting you're supporting her government, which would be (a) stupid and (b) impossible to sell to the party, never mind the electorate.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...

There are various elections between now and June, I'm guessing non-parliamentary elections go ahead, presumably any pending by-elections go forward to the GE.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...

There are various elections between now and June, I'm guessing non-parliamentary elections go ahead, presumably any pending by-elections go forward to the GE.
That looks like what's going to happen - although there is apparently some possibility that the metro-mayoral elections will move to the GE date, along with the Gorton by-election. Council elections remain May.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It's pretty cynical IMO: Labour will be soundly trounced with Corbyn at the helm which will enable TM to cruise with a solid majority for the next five years...
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If the the remoaners and the regrexits do something odd on June 8 then foregone conclusions might yet again prove false, but in all honesty it really does look like the 1983 Springtime for Tories all over again ...
[Snore]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...

Pfft - Jürgen Klopp electing a new pair of glasses would overshadow the Merseyside mayoral election ...
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...

Pfft - Jürgen Klopp electing a new pair of glasses would overshadow the Merseyside mayoral election ...
I agree - the profile here, on the edge, was already non-existent. The only pressing issue around here is free crossings on the new Mersey bridge arrangements. For those of inside the boundary it will be free anyway. For people over the border in Cheshire West, it will cost, but they can't vote for the mayor anyway.

I've already seen people from Cheshire on Facebook saying they'll be able to stick the boot in to their MP over failed commitments to get free use of the crossings.
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's pretty cynical IMO: Labour will be soundly trounced with Corbyn at the helm which will enable TM to cruise with a solid majority for the next five years...

Pretty sure that's why she's doing it. Which makes a mockery of the fixed term parliament act. I know there's the 66% HOC vote loop hole, but this is exactly the kind of maneuver that the act was supposed to stop isn't it?

Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The SNP in Scotland will now have a lot of issues to consider, and may well lose seats.

The SNP got so many seats in 2015 that I don't think there is any way that they can hold onto all of them. Though, with Labour still in disarray, LibDem shenanigans in 2015 still fresh in memory, and the Tories as loathed as always they'll have to work hard to lose very many seats. In Scotland the question of IndyRef2 will loom large - which will work both ways with antagonism towards the Tories blocking Scotland having a chance to have a say supporting the SNP/Greens and the general "we don't want another referendum now" plus Unionism supporting everyone else. The SNP can afford to run this as a single issue election. Labour and Tory, and to a lesser extent LibDems, have to run it as a campaign to form a government and so should be running a broad platform across the range of UK Parliamentary policy subjects (defense, welfare, health, education etc).
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's pretty cynical IMO: Labour will be soundly trounced with Corbyn at the helm which will enable TM to cruise with a solid majority for the next five years...

Pretty sure that's why she's doing it. Which makes a mockery of the fixed term parliament act. I know there's the 66% HOC vote loop hole, but this is exactly the kind of maneuver that the act was supposed to stop isn't it?
I agree: if the Act can be overcome this easily (basically by the PM saying, "I'd like to hold an election" and the opposition parties saying, "OK then"), is there much point in having it?

That said, I can't help thinking that the Act itself was a fairly cynical piece of legislation that was less about ensuring good, stable government for the UK and more about making sure any rebellious LibDem or Tory MPs couldn't bring down the 2010-15 coalition in a fit of pique.

quote:
Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.
Particularly as May's reason for calling the election seems to be, "The other parties aren't playing fair - they keep disagreeing with me and stuff. That's not right. So I'm going to call an election to make them stop".
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The Lib Dems, the biggest danger to the Tories in the south, have hardly started rebuilding. They could regain the SW London seats but little else and they could in fact help the Tories by attracting Labour voters alienated by Corbyn. The Tories will probably regain Clacton from UKIP, if Douglas Carswell doesn't return to the fold anyway. They will probably eliminate the UKIP vote: it's been sliding for months. The Tories could even pick up a few extra seats in Scotland

The Lib Dems will likely see a resurgence and have a relatively good election in the South. UKIP will tank because it's done its job. On a recent Question Time Paul Nuttall said he agreed with everything the PM says about Brexit, but he doesn't trust her to deliver it. This makes him irrelevant. Labour will lose seats but not perhaps as badly as some fear. Their support is so geographical that many of their seats are totally safe. It's very likely that the PM will significantly increase her majority.

In Scotland I would expect the hated Tories to do better than they've done for a long time because they're the only dedicated Unionist party there. The SNP will still sweep the board but perhaps with a slightly reduced majority. Remainers have been invited by Tim Farron to send the government a message. If his support is as good as he says, he should go back to 19th century levels of support!
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The SNP in Scotland will now have a lot of issues to consider, and may well lose seats.

The SNP got so many seats in 2015 that I don't think there is any way that they can hold onto all of them. Though, with Labour still in disarray, LibDem shenanigans in 2015 still fresh in memory, and the Tories as loathed as always they'll have to work hard to lose very many seats. In Scotland the question of IndyRef2 will loom large - which will work both ways with antagonism towards the Tories blocking Scotland having a chance to have a say supporting the SNP/Greens and the general "we don't want another referendum now" plus Unionism supporting everyone else. The SNP can afford to run this as a single issue election. Labour and Tory, and to a lesser extent LibDems, have to run it as a campaign to form a government and so should be running a broad platform across the range of UK Parliamentary policy subjects (defense, welfare, health, education etc).
Up to a point. If SNP run on the single issue of IndyRef2, that gives the opposition plenty of opportunity to show they're so focused on that they're not focusing on the other issues facing Scotland and go after them based on their record of delivering government. Which is patchy if I've understood my Scottish friends correctly. And they'll have to come up with a practical plan for how independence will actually work. Including answering the awkward questions about EU membership that they're currently dodging.

Tubbs

PS. I am so fucked off by this already. I can't / won't vote Tory, Labour are bloody useless, the Greens have no chance where I live and only the LibDems appear to be putting up any sort of fight. Ah well ...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.

So create your own Party and campaign for the policies you want to see implemented. Nobody is stopping you. And if enough people agree with your platform then you'll win the election and get to run the country accordingly.

If you don't think you'd get enough votes to win the election then that doesn't mean democracy is dying, it just means the majority (or plurality, if you prefer) of people in the country disagree with how you would want to do things. Which is pretty much the opposite of democracy dying, when you think about it.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's pretty cynical IMO: Labour will be soundly trounced with Corbyn at the helm which will enable TM to cruise with a solid majority for the next five years...

Pretty sure that's why she's doing it. Which makes a mockery of the fixed term parliament act. I know there's the 66% HOC vote loop hole, but this is exactly the kind of maneuver that the act was supposed to stop isn't it?

Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.

Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Particularly as May's reason for calling the election seems to be, "The other parties aren't playing fair - they keep disagreeing with me and stuff. That's not right. So I'm going to call an election to make them stop".

Yes, she wants a bigger majority so that she can enact her policies more easily. Whether she gets it or not is up to the people. Which is as it should be.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party.

Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
This election could turn out to be a hidden blessing for Labour. If it does badly enough it may realise that dumping the numpty in charge is the way forward to recovering its place as an electable political force.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
While we're doing Mystic Meg.... I'll get these out as top of head predictions as per the 2015 thread, then see how reality pans out:

Tory win - majority spread 40-70 (which looks like fence sitting but I'm taking into account polls narrowing over the next few weeks)

Tories second largest party in Scotland on votes and seats - HOLD Dumfriesshire Clydesdale and Tweeddale, GAIN Stirling, Borders and AN Other 2. Potential LOSS in Oxford West and Abingdon but I think Nicola Blackwood will just about hold on in the end.

Carswell to HOLD Clacton

LibDems up to 25-27 seats, taking some off the Tories and some from Labour. Interestingly, they won't resweep the SW - I reckon they'll take back 1 seat in Cornwall, and maybe North Devon. Where they're going to win is Metro-cities.

Labour to not quite have the apocalypse opponents of theirs dream of, but it's still going to hurt a lot. They're going to have casualties in the West Midlands - the Tories really ought to take back Birmingham Edgbaston but the Gisela Stewart factor means they probably won't. Tories to TAKE at least 2 seats in Brum though.

Greens to HOLD in Brighton

SNP to LOSE spread 5-10 seats but pile up vote share elsewhere

I've already booked the day after off work...
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.

The Welsh voters weren't though. So it leaves us asking how much of Wales the party represents.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Welsh voters weren't though. So it leaves us asking how much of Wales the party represents.

What an odd thing to say. Obviously every political party represents the views of the people who vote for them and not those who don't.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I'm just a Canadian observer of the UK, but I gather the Tories win because the anti-Tory vote is split five ways among the opposition parties.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party.

Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.
As have the SNP I believe. But as an English resident I can't vote for either.
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
Interesting thoughts here by John Curtice on whether the Tories will actually get the landslide that their poll lead suggests, given that the SNP have a stranglehold on Scotland and Northern Island basically does its own thing (even more interesting for NI is that their recent Assembly election cut support for the DUP and UU...).

The Lib Dems in the South West may also be feeling confident about grabbing some of their old seats back: the Tories succeeded in 2015 with their scare tactic of Labour & SNP in coalition, but since Labour aren't likely to be in such a position voters may feel OK about voting Lib Dem again.

(Declaration of interest: I've generally been a Lib Dem supporter since Charlie Kennedy)
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
No TV debates in this election, according to No. 10....
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
No TV debates in this election, according to No. 10....

That's a relief. May v Corbyn v Farron - how rubbish would that be?
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
No TV debates in this election, according to No. 10....

That's a relief. May v Corbyn v Farron - how rubbish would that be?
Might've been OK had they done it in the style of a Robot Wars mayhem match.

In which case Jeremy Paxman would be Sir Killalot and David Dimbleby would be Matilda.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Fake Breaking News - Nigel Farage to resume the Helm of UKIP. Jeremy Corbyn resigns forcing Leadership election. It really is fake isn't it ?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line. I accept that some of its key players probably still wish it was. But objectively it isn't. Some of the other bits of his ideology may be different, but Corbyn and his party line make it as much a Brexiteer party as Mrs Erdogan and hers.

Unless you're in Scotland or Wales, the choice is between,
UKIP + a bit of socialism,
UKIP in a skirt and red heels, or
Lib Dam and hope enough other people do to give them a chance to block at least some of (and IMHO preferably all) of Brexit.

[ 18. April 2017, 16:55: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line. I accept that some of its key players probably still wish it was. But objectively it isn't. Some of the other bits of his ideology may be different, but Corbyn and his party line make it as much a Brexiteer party as Mrs Erdogan and hers.

I agree in general. But some Labour MPs ignored the party whip on Jeremy Corbyn's We're Definitely Going to Oppose the Tories Later vote.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I notice that today, when it really counts (i.e. when it becomes a matter of their livelihoods!) Labour MPs seem remarkably united. By which I mean there hasn't been an out-and-out spat for hours.

A word of caution before anyone pays too much attention to "what the polls are saying" - Stephan Shakespeare, CEO of YouGov, is a former Tory parliamentary candidate. Its co-founder was Nadhim Zahawi, the Tory MP most famous during the expenses scandal for trying to get his stables heated at the taxpayers' expense.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
More politics. More politicians telling lies, spouting the usual bullshit before they screw us all roundly for the next few years.

Firstly, I don't know if I can stand it any more. Political crap by the digger-load.

Secondly, there is a possibility that shit-face will get in again, and continue her policy of trashing the country. The idea makes me want to vomit.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Comfort yourself with the thought that it'll all be over in just a few weeks.

Even more so if the Terrible Toddlers start throwing their nuclear toys about in the meantime.....

IJ
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Secondly, there is a possibility that shit-face will get in again, and continue her policy of trashing the country. The idea makes me want to vomit.

So campaign against her!

That's the hard part of the whole "democracy" thing. One Person One Vote is the easy bit, the rest is all about trying to convince each One Person to give their One Vote to the causes you support. If you succeed I shall congratulate you. If you fail I shall expect you to STFU about it for a bit.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Even more so if the Terrible Toddlers start throwing their nuclear toys about in the meantime.....

We're literally on the other side of the world. I say leave 'em to it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Meanwhile prosecutors have apparently announced that they're considering charging more than 30 with election expense fraud. I wonder if this had any impact on the timing of the GE.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Two of my questions as an outsider:

1. I know it is not likely to happen or succeed, but how would a pact among the anti-Brexit (or anti-Tory) parties work? I would propose that Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens (I won't go into the NI parties because things are more complicated there) agree that in any seat that is not absolutely safe for one of their parties, all other candidates drop out except for the one that is most likely to defeat the Tory candidate. In order to make this a truly pro-remain election, I think Corwyn would need to say that although he honored the outcome of the referendum by voting to let May trigger article 50, this snap election has allowed voters to give a second opinion on Brexit, and the Brexit outcome that the Leave campaign said would happen is now clearly not what the Tories have said they would do or what the EU is likely to accept, so Labour should campaign to try to get the EU to change its rules to let the UK remain after triggering article 50 or, at the very least, try to negotiate the softest Brexit possible (a la Norway).

As for a second Scottish Independence referendum, I think that the SNP should say that if this election can result in no Brexit or a a Brexit that retains access to the EU common market, they would be willing to postpone a second independence referendum for the time being, but if the Tories keep their majority and push for a hard Brexit like they have been doing, they will keep pushing for a second referendum.

Those of you who would like to see such an anti-Brexit, anti-Tory pact - what do you think it should look like, unlikely or unpractical as it may be?

2. What prevents Parliament from just repealing the law requiring a 2/3 vote to have an early election rather than wait 5 years with a normal majority vote? Since the UK doesn't have a written constitution, how does one law get to prevent future laws from repealing it with a normal majority? Someone who understands British politics better than I can probably explain this.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line. I accept that some of its key players probably still wish it was. But objectively it isn't. Some of the other bits of his ideology may be different, but Corbyn and his party line make it as much a Brexiteer party as Mrs Erdogan and hers.

I agree in general. But some Labour MPs ignored the party whip on Jeremy Corbyn's We're Definitely Going to Oppose the Tories Later vote.
We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.
 
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
All I can say to that is 'if only'. The problem is that those who are politically very engaged and committed will not or cannot make common cause with other parties whose 'doctrine' isn't as pure as theirs. There are so many parallels with religious sects and one has only to look at the way it's seemingly impossibly for Christians of broadly similar persuasion to join together because of some ancient dispute or disagreement over matters of theology which matter not a fig, to ordinary people, to see how impossible that sort of alliance would be.
The only way now for anti Tories to retain at risk seats is where there is a constituency MP who has genuinely committed themselves to the local people and whose good faith is not in question. There are some,but sadly all too few.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I know it is not likely to happen or succeed, but how would a pact among the anti-Brexit (or anti-Tory) parties work?

I get the impression that Corbyn only thinks there are two legitimate political parties. Also he and a good section of his support won't forgive the Liberal Democrats for going into coalition with the Tories last time. Finally, I really don't think Corbyn's heart is in Remain.

On the side of the SNP I think they'll be happy to take the risk of losing a seat in order to get the chance of completing the collection.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line. I accept that some of its key players probably still wish it was. But objectively it isn't. Some of the other bits of his ideology may be different, but Corbyn and his party line make it as much a Brexiteer party as Mrs Erdogan and hers.

I agree in general. But some Labour MPs ignored the party whip on Jeremy Corbyn's We're Definitely Going to Oppose the Tories Later vote.
We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.
And what happened in the early hours of 24th June to change their minds...?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.

The Welsh voters weren't though. So it leaves us asking how much of Wales the party represents.
For the most part PC gets seats in the Welsh-speaking parts of Wales. They have won parliamentary seats elsewhere, but not Cardiff North, dormitory area home of Welsh Office/National Assembly and BBC Wales/Cymru staff, many of whom are Welsh speakers.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
An important question is where the UKIP vote goes. Their increase at the last election came partly by taking Tory votes, and also attracting previous non-voters. However, they also took votes from Labour.

The polling trends (declining Labour and UKIP and increasing Tory) suggest that the UKIP vote is heading over to Theresa May's (supposedly) one-nation Tory party and not back to Labour. If so, the Tories could pick up a further swathe of Middle England seats, particularly if Labour campaign on a Remain ticket.

With two or three extra Tory seats in Scotland I'm picking a 100+ majority for the them. Certainly enough for May conduct Brexit negotiations without having to worry about some troublesome backbenchers and Lords.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.

And what happened in the early hours of 24th June to change their minds...?
They had a Road to Damascus moment, in which they considered their political ambitions and reassessed their futures.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Secondly, there is a possibility that shit-face will get in again, and continue her policy of trashing the country. The idea makes me want to vomit.

So campaign against her!

That's the hard part of the whole "democracy" thing. One Person One Vote is the easy bit, the rest is all about trying to convince each One Person to give their One Vote to the causes you support. If you succeed I shall congratulate you. If you fail I shall expect you to STFU about it for a bit.

I have plenty of times in the past, and will, as much as I am able, this time.

And I won't STFU whatever, because I will continue standing for hose who are oppressed. That applied whatever the party in power is.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line {/B]

During the Article 50 debate in February/March, Sir Kier Starmer repeatedly made the point that Labour is a pro EU party. Now I am sure that I will never vote Labour while Jeremy Corbyn is leader and while Ken Livingstone is allowed to remain a member, but I feel sorry for the impossibility Labour has of defining a coherent strategy for Brexit to take into this election. Two thirds of Labour voters voted Remain. Two thirds of Labour constituencies voted Leave. You can't please them all.

I recently heard Jezza say that he will insist that Britain remains in the Single Market and the Customs Union to protect jobs. I think all MP's will pay lip service to the idea of protecting jobs, but Corbyn is against the wall here. If we stay in the SM and CU we will continue to make large contributions to the EU budget. We will continue to accept the indivisible four freedoms and we will be unable to arrange any unilateral trade deals. Most importantly, we will have no say over how any of these rules are made. JC will be called out over this during this election campaign, and I'd love to see how he tries to sell this to the voters.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[B] Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party

Although I won't be joining Matt in supporting the Lib Dems, he's right here. Anyone who is so passionately opposed to Brexit that they would move heaven and earth to reverse the decision MUST vote Lib Dem. I made a flippant aside to Tim Farron getting more Lib votes than any leader since Lloyd George, but if the country(in England, that is. The Scots have the SNP and the Welsh have Plaid) wants to stop Brexit it's the only way to vote.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
stonespring
quote:
Since the UK doesn't have a written constitution, how does one law get to prevent future laws from repealing it with a normal majority? Someone who understands British politics better than I can probably explain this.
In the UK Parliament is Sovereign. Consequently, it follows that any one Parliament 'cannot bind its successors".
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.

And what happened in the early hours of 24th June to change their minds...?
They had a Road to Damascus moment, in which they considered their political ambitions and reassessed their futures.
Oh I see. I thought a referendum result came through (which they'd promised to honour).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... 2. What prevents Parliament from just repealing the law requiring a 2/3 vote to have an early election rather than wait 5 years with a normal majority vote? Since the UK doesn't have a written constitution, how does one law get to prevent future laws from repealing it with a normal majority? Someone who understands British politics better than I can probably explain this.

Stonespring, it takes longer.

It's also possible that some MPs might vote against it on the grounds that it hasn't been in a Queen's speech. And the Lords could reject it on the same grounds, which would defer it still further. They can't obstruct a vote to call an election under the Act.

quote:
originally posted by Dafyd
... Finally, I really don't think Corbyn's heart is in Remain. ...

Corbyn isn't a Remainer, never was one and never wanted to be one. His heart is in Socialism in One Country - led by him. He regards membership of the EU as something that hinders his ability to impose that dream.

He was prepared to accept before the Referendum that EU membership was Labour Party policy. He claims, probably truthfully, that he voted for it. But he markedly didn't campaign for it.

[ 18. April 2017, 20:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Actually I have the impression he doesn't want to run anything. I agree with the rest of what you say though.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
On last night's news coverage I saw more than one Labour MP trying to divert the conversation in the direction of the crisis in the NHS, school funding etc. This is something they're perfectly entitled to do as Brexit isn't the only game in town, or shouldn't be in a General Election. But all the news teams and most of the politicians agree that this is a Brexit election. Labour is still the most trusted party with regards to the NHS even when it's deeply unpopular. But what the public want to know from Labour is what vision it has for Brexit and how it plans to achieve it. Its lack of policy in this direction will, I believe, cost it dearly in the election.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Its lack of policy in this direction will, I believe, cost it dearly in the election.

A slight correction: its lack of policy and Corbyn's lack of ability to lead the party.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Actually I have the impression he doesn't want to run anything. I agree with the rest of what you say though.

Corbyn has two fantasies, both of which make him unsuitable to be allowed anywhere near power. One is that he's Lenin. The other is, that if as leader, he says something, that's all he needs to do. It will happen.

John McDonnell, though, who is hovering in the background all the time, is sinister.

[ 19. April 2017, 08:44: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
On last night's news coverage I saw more than one Labour MP trying to divert the conversation in the direction of the crisis in the NHS, school funding etc. This is something they're perfectly entitled to do as Brexit isn't the only game in town, or shouldn't be in a General Election. But all the news teams and most of the politicians agree that this is a Brexit election. Labour is still the most trusted party with regards to the NHS even when it's deeply unpopular. But what the public want to know from Labour is what vision it has for Brexit and how it plans to achieve it. Its lack of policy in this direction will, I believe, cost it dearly in the election.

It's up to the electorate to make it about something more than Brexit. Just say no.
 
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.

Democracy is dying because there is an elephant in the room - first past the post is not up to the current job. It's fine in a two-party system that encourages binary argument. We no longer have that (if we ever did). Consequently we get a series of governments who have less than half the support of the electorate, and a majority of people who feel their votes do not count. What we need urgently is a fairer representative voting system.

Right now I don't know how to decide who or what I am voting for. In some ways it would be better if the non-Tory MPs rejected today's vote for a snap election and told Mrs May to shut up and get on with the job, but holding her to account. As others have already said, this is unlikely because it would be seen to be an expression of fear of defeat.

I don't feel very positive today [Frown]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I was talking about this with colleagues today...

One said he was in fear of violence during the campaign, with tensions and emotions running high on both sides of the Brexit, and political, divide -- and adding in a good dose of dissatisfaction and resentment too. Do those in the UK see this too? Or do you think it will be relatively peaceful?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's up to the electorate to make it about something more than Brexit. Just say no.

Though, the more we vote on issues other than Brexit then the less the result will be a mandate for a particular form of Brexit. Which makes the whole exercise fruitless in terms of uniting the country behind the narrow, racist, xenophobic idiocy that Mrs May is pursuing (not that I want the country united behind that anyway).

At the best, for Mrs May, the election will result in a Tory majority without the risk of that being demolished as police investigations into election expenses lead to MPs standing down in marginal seats. An election now means that Mrs May fights it before the economic impact of Brexit bites, before the reality that negotiations are going to result in a large bill to leave the EU and then further negotiations to create a trade deal becomes so obvious that even the flat earth society couldn't deny it, and before people in marginal seats see their MPs disqualified over election expenses with subsequent by-elections.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out [Paranoid]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I was talking about this with colleagues today...

One said he was in fear of violence during the campaign, with tensions and emotions running high on both sides of the Brexit, and political, divide -- and adding in a good dose of dissatisfaction and resentment too. Do those in the UK see this too? Or do you think it will be relatively peaceful?

Genuinely?? Have they been to the UK? Absent the odd nutter there's probably more chance of apathy leading to an all-time low turnout and general national shrug of the shoulders. That's not going to happen either though.

FWIW my prediction is that the overwhelming majority of the UK population will give the whole thing a stiff ignoring until June 8th (until that week most people asked in the street probably won't be able to tell you when the election even is), at which point they'll trundle off to the polling station, write a cross on a piece of paper with a pencil, then go home to Coronation Street. Meanwhile:

-18-24s still won't vote

-Tory voters and pensioners will turn out come hell or high water, because they always do

-The Liberals will talk a good fight and at best triple their representation in Parliament (which would be awesome, if it wasn't also 24 seats)

- an awful lot of people (although interestingly I suspect more people are going to be honest this time round than usual) will tell anyone from the press who asks that they're voting for any party other than the Tories, then in the privacy of the voting booth put their cross down for the blue team like they were always going to

- Labour voters will be even more prone than usual to look out of their window, see a bit of drizzle, and decide not to bother voting

- Come June 9th, the duty Dimbleby will be staring bleary eyed from the TV screen, every psephology wonk in Britain will be in a sort of post-rave slump after an all-night niche interest euphoria, the sun will have come up, and we'll continue to muddle along as we always do.

- acres of trees will be sacrificed for that weekend's newsprint

About the only interesting thing this time round will be that random seats will change colour randomly - while I expect the Tories to win, all sorts of things might go on in the marginals as one party slumps, one surges, and a third comes up the middle - which will see Tory, Lib Dem and Labour taking seats off each other all over the shop regardless of the overall national picture.

TLDR - people will get all exercised on here and other internet fora, idiots like me will stay up all night glued to the BBC, most people will give it a stiff ignoring.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Or do you think it will be relatively peaceful?

I don't expect to see MPs or candidates getting gunned down in the street. And, UKIP won't be at the front of campaigning threatening violence if they don't get their way. So, yes relatively peaceful. Another Tory victory, especially if it results in a large majority, will be seen as an endorsement of the anti-immigration policies built upon the lies of the far right, and will probably result in a further hike in violence and intimidation of those not deemed to be British enough.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out [Paranoid]

Really? I genuinely can't see UKIP winning anywhere. I mean, obviously I'd advise that if it was a real threat but genuinely?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Ukip were a one trick pony and that bar has been jumped.
Mr and Mrs Angry who have yet to to see immigration blocked may still want to support them, or the BNP.

Let us also not forget that Mrs and Mr Nice still reeling in shock at the Brexit win, having themselves not bothered to vote. They will be out in force to vote for who-knows-wot come June.

Mrs May might not be in for a smooth a ride as she thinks. She is putting all her money on Corbyn's current unpopularity and her own extended honeymoon.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out [Paranoid]

Really? I genuinely can't see UKIP winning anywhere. I mean, obviously I'd advise that if it was a real threat but genuinely?
Since UKIP's win on 23rd June 2016, has there been any difference between them and the Tory party?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out [Paranoid]

Really? I genuinely can't see UKIP winning anywhere. I mean, obviously I'd advise that if it was a real threat but genuinely?
Since UKIP's win on 23rd June 2016, has there been any difference between them and the Tory party?
Well the Tories don't appear to have adopted the lovely UKIP policy of "proper liveries for trains"....
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well the Tories don't appear to have adopted the lovely UKIP policy of "proper liveries for trains"....

OK, that aside ..... [Biased]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I am in a gerrymandered Tory constituency with an MP who was a very good constituency MP but is now a continuing cabinet minister with a responsibility I am not at all supportive of, as a Quaker. I may ask for enlightenment as to party plans for supporting the poor, the disabled, and those who fall through the gaps in the welfare state (or even why they have rewritten the meaning of welfare to be a bad thing). I expect to have no satisfactory answer. He wants money spent on weaponry. No point defending the people from hypothetical attacks when you choose not to defend them from real issues. And when the Prime Minister goes on about being a Christian while ignoring what the founder stated were the markers of His followers.

[ 19. April 2017, 12:25: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It appears that the chances of Labour standing against Brexit are almost nil. Sadly.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Even the LibDems on the TV news this morning were talking about keeping the UK in the single market and not keeping us in the EU.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It appears that the chances of Labour standing against Brexit are almost nil. Sadly.

If Labour won't stand against a decision made in the heat of the moment on the basis of a campaign based on falsehoods, prejudice and outright lies they won't get my vote. I have grandchildren and I don't want them to grow up disadvantaged by Brexit.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even the LibDems on the TV news this morning were talking about keeping the UK in the single market and not keeping us in the EU.

Are all the parties so craven at the result of that bloody referendum? Has no one any guts?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
I don't expect to see MPs or candidates getting gunned down in the street.
I don't either, but it happened last year. [Votive]

[ 19. April 2017, 12:50: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even the LibDems on the TV news this morning were talking about keeping the UK in the single market and not keeping us in the EU.

Are all the parties so craven at the result of that bloody referendum? Has no one any guts?
When it comes down to it, and even with the gains they expect to make in certain seats, the LibDems do need to bear in mind that 25% of 2015 LibDem voters voted Leave.

Someone at LibDem HQ needs to be running the numbers if they aren't already - Vince this morning on BBC R4 ruled out working with Labour post election.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:


Someone at LibDem HQ needs to be running the numbers if they aren't already - Vince this morning on BBC R4 ruled out working with Labour post election.

During the Commons debate Farron refused to rule out coalitions with anyone.

That said, it seems unlikely that the Tories would want to go in coalition with the LD
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... Someone at LibDem HQ needs to be running the numbers if they aren't already - Vince this morning on BBC R4 ruled out working with Labour post election.

He's probably right on that. IMHO Corbyn is even less likely to be prepared to co-operate with anyone else than Gordon Brown was. He would regard it as a betrayal of both his vision and his claque team. The whole idea of such a thing is deeply and profoundly foreign to his nature.

The one fundamental pre-condition for anyone to be able to enter into a coalition with Labour would be Labour having a different leader, and the dominant element among its members won't wear that.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Dear God, how depressing it all is.
[Disappointed]

Where's that bottle of single malt?
[Help]

I know what party I support, and for whom I will doubtless vote (it isn't the Tories, even though my local Tory MP voted Remain), but what's the point? Unless some unprecedented miracle of inter-party co-operation occurs (O look, a flock of flying pigs....), we're going to be stuck with that Bloody May Woman and her Bloody Party for decades ...

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Dear God, how depressing it all is.
[Disappointed]

IJ

This might as well be my sig. Out of fear, people are turning the world into one that should scare them even more.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The one fundamental pre-condition for anyone to be able to enter into a coalition with Labour would be Labour having a different leader, and the dominant element among its members won't wear that.

Most British politicians fall on their swords when they lose a major vote. I hope to see Labour get such a mauling that, one way or the other, they get rid of Corbyn and begin the healing process to make them electable again. As happened in the 1980's and 90's. The honourable thing for him to do would be to resign, but if he's too thick skinned he needs to be pushed. As long as he isn't replaced by the odious Mr McDonnell.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Amen to all that.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The problem with the leaders is that there is no clear person to replace them. I don't think there is single person in the leadership of any of the major parties who I would trust with posting a letter, never mind leading the country.

The problem is we had a referendum last year on a simple question, ignoring the complexities of that decision, and some people made it a vote on whether Cameron should carry on. That vote is used to justify all sorts of crap.

So now, we have a General Election which is being run based on Brexit, with both main parties being on the same side of that question. Which makes no sense whatsoever. And after people vote for for all sorts of reasons one side or the other, the government will then take that as a mandate for doing whatever they want (not just with Brexit, but with everything). We will have 5 years of a government voted in on the basis of one issue. With no choice.

It is insane. And we will be fucked whatever. I despair.
 
Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem with the leaders is that there is no clear person to replace them. I don't think there is single person in the leadership of any of the major parties who I would trust with posting a letter, never mind leading the country.

What Schroedinger's cat said
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
A Dutch friend of mine has suggested the EU might consider suspending exit negotiations until the General Election is over, so they can be absolutely sure who they are dealing with.

If that happens, it will take almost another month off the alotted time, won't it?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks for the responses. Appreciated.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Alan:
quote:
I don't expect to see MPs or candidates getting gunned down in the street.
I don't either, but it happened last year. [Votive]
I think this is where my colleague was going...

Apathy can be troublesome, but compared to violent protests I would prefer it...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If that happens, it will take almost another month off the alotted time, won't it?

Remember folks, Nicola Sturgeon was irresponsible to suggest an independence referendum in the run up to Brexit because the UK government needed to concentrate on the negotiations.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
He's probably right on that. IMHO Corbyn is even less likely to be prepared to co-operate with anyone else than Gordon Brown was. He would regard it as a betrayal of both his vision and his claque team. The whole idea of such a thing is deeply and profoundly foreign to his nature.

The one fundamental pre-condition for anyone to be able to enter into a coalition with Labour would be Labour having a different leader, and the dominant element among its members won't wear that.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people, and I've no idea what a "claque team" is. As for the idea that the junior party in a coalition could force out the elected leader of the senior party: I hope you're enjoying whatever it is you're smoking! Damn right the members wouldn't wear it, and why on earth should they? The only way Labour are going to be considering a coalition is if they're the largest party. Could Clegg have made Cameron resigning a condition of coalition in 2010? Don't be absurd.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
On Corbyn, perhaps another ignorant question from me:

Why is there such a disconnect between the Labour faithful [who love Corbyn] and everyone else? If Corbyn were to be rolled, how would the everyday member who loves him react? [I think I could guess, but would they just move on?]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Ian, the problem there is that there are a lot of ordinary Party members who prefer doctrinal purity to electability.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If that happens, it will take almost another month off the alotted time, won't it?

Not really. It has already been made clear that negotiations won't get off the ground until June. In that sense the PM's timing is perfect.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ian, the problem there is that there are a lot of ordinary Party members who prefer doctrinal purity to electability.

Thanks.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Party member here.

Nah, he's not talking for me.

Is he talking for any party member here?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
If Corbyn were to be rolled, how would the everyday member who loves him react? [I think I could guess, but would they just move on?]

Back in 1982 Jeremy Corbyn and his close friend and ally Ken Livingstone were at the forefront of opposition to the expulsion of the Trotskyite Militant Tendency from the Labour Party. Well now they're back in in their latest incarnation as Momentum. These are the people behind Jeremy Corbyn now. It was only when Michael Foot and later Neil Kinnock enforced these expulsions that Labour began the long road back to electability. It's only when Labour learns the same lesson again and rids itself of this leadership and the malign influence of Momentum that it can rehabilitate itself. There are plenty of Labour MP's who can be at the forefront of this rehabilitation. I only hope it doesn't take 13 years this time. That's why I hope for a resounding Labour defeat so it has a chance of making itself fit to govern within the space of one parliament.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ian, the problem there is that there are a lot of ordinary Party members who prefer doctrinal purity to electability.

But is the doctrinal purity of that Labour party members who support him the same as Corbyn's doctrinal purity? It seems to me that a lot of the enthusiastic young people who joined the Labour party to vote for Corbyn see him as the closest thing to the Green Party that they will get out of Labour. Corbyn's detractors, though, keep calling him a Leninist (which he may very well have been, and he may be running the party in an authoritarian way like a Leninist would, but my very little knowledge of his statements as party leader have not shown me yet anything to indicate that he is a Leninist rather than just very old school in his Labour Party politics. I know that I don't know much about him - so I'd like to hear from you exactly how he is a Leninist today!... and whether or not the Labour Party members that support him are Leninists).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Party member here.

Nah, he's not talking for me.

Is he talking for any party member here?

Well I like the stuff he says (but I'm a Tory Party member...)
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Is there any chance that even if the anti-Tory parties themselves can't get their act together to form an electoral pact, that there could be a grass roots movement to unite voters behind a single anti-Tory candidate (the one most likely to win) in each constituency (and leaving out other objectionable parties like UKIP)? If this succeeded and a very unstable anti-Tory coalition managed to negotiate a very soft Brexit (if not a reversal of Brexit, given that Article 50 has already been invoked) before collapsing and there being another election, would this be preferable to stable Tory government and Brexit negotiations proceeding with the position that May has laid out?

Also, even if Labour will not come out against Brexit, is the party and/or Corbyn really in favor of leaving the single market? Is it in favor of ending the free movement of people to and from EU countries?

I know that many historical Labour voters who have been sympathetic to UKIP and/or the Tories might feel this way, but I doubt they want much to do with Labour under Corbyn. They also seem to have already put one foot out of the party regardless of who is leading it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If that happens, it will take almost another month off the alotted time, won't it?

Not really. It has already been made clear that negotiations won't get off the ground until June. In that sense the PM's timing is perfect.
The negotiations will start then. But, between now and then the EU negotiators will be formulating their response to the letter Mrs May wrote triggering Article 50 and the white paper, meeting other European leaders to gauge what room they'll have and still get something that will be approved etc. They could continue that process ready for a June start to negotiations. Or, they could pause so that if the election results in a change of government (and, presumably negotiating position on Brexit) they don't have to bin most of what they've done before starting their response to the new UK position.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Back in 1982 Jeremy Corbyn and his close friend and ally Ken Livingstone were at the forefront of opposition to the expulsion of the Trotskyite Militant Tendency from the Labour Party. Well now they're back in in their latest incarnation as Momentum.

Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people

He certainly has no problem co-operating with Teresa May.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this succeeded and a very unstable anti-Tory coalition managed to negotiate a very soft Brexit (if not a reversal of Brexit, given that Article 50 has already been invoked) before collapsing and there being another election, would this be preferable to stable Tory government and Brexit negotiations proceeding with the position that May has laid out?

Anything would be preferable to the position May has laid out, and another five years of Tory mis-rule. I would like a reversal of Brexit, but the big stumbling block there is the lack of enough parties standing on a reversal of Brexit platform. The Greens have been calling for a ratification referendum at the end of the negotiations, with a "stay in the EU" option for those unhappy with what the government has cooked up, the SNP would try to take Scotland back into the EU though I doubt they would campaign on keeping the UK as a whole in the EU. But, I don't see the Greens getting more than a handful of seats (which would be great in itself), and the SNP could sweep the board in Scotland and only have influence as a king-maker for a coalition (and, another IndyRef at a time chosen by the Scottish Parliament would be the price for that, not support for remaining in the EU).
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is there any chance that even if the anti-Tory parties themselves can't get their act together to form an electoral pact, that there could be a grass roots movement to unite voters behind a single anti-Tory candidate (the one most likely to win) in each constituency

You mean something along these lines? (I don't even know who is compiling this one - someone linked it on facebook.)
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Trotskyists? We're talking members of the SWP here, who are very, very, very, very small. Richard Seymour, who used to belong to the SWP, said that there are about 200 active Trotskyists.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this succeeded and a very unstable anti-Tory coalition managed to negotiate a very soft Brexit (if not a reversal of Brexit, given that Article 50 has already been invoked) before collapsing and there being another election, would this be preferable to stable Tory government and Brexit negotiations proceeding with the position that May has laid out?

Anything would be preferable to the position May has laid out, and another five years of Tory mis-rule. I would like a reversal of Brexit, but the big stumbling block there is the lack of enough parties standing on a reversal of Brexit platform. The Greens have been calling for a ratification referendum at the end of the negotiations, with a "stay in the EU" option for those unhappy with what the government has cooked up, the SNP would try to take Scotland back into the EU though I doubt they would campaign on keeping the UK as a whole in the EU. But, I don't see the Greens getting more than a handful of seats (which would be great in itself), and the SNP could sweep the board in Scotland and only have influence as a king-maker for a coalition (and, another IndyRef at a time chosen by the Scottish Parliament would be the price for that, not support for remaining in the EU).
But couldn't Labour, the SNP, the Greens, and the Lib Dems all agree that if Brexit does happen (suppose the EU won't let the UK go back on Invoking Article 50), and, in the SNP's case, as long as Scotland is still part of the UK, that the UK should stay in the single market - or have something as close to staying in the single market as possible, even if that means accepting the free movement of people/labor in and out of the EU from the UK?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.

To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this succeeded and a very unstable anti-Tory coalition managed to negotiate a very soft Brexit (if not a reversal of Brexit, given that Article 50 has already been invoked) before collapsing and there being another election, would this be preferable to stable Tory government and Brexit negotiations proceeding with the position that May has laid out?

Anything would be preferable to the position May has laid out, and another five years of Tory mis-rule. I would like a reversal of Brexit, but the big stumbling block there is the lack of enough parties standing on a reversal of Brexit platform. The Greens have been calling for a ratification referendum at the end of the negotiations, with a "stay in the EU" option for those unhappy with what the government has cooked up, the SNP would try to take Scotland back into the EU though I doubt they would campaign on keeping the UK as a whole in the EU. But, I don't see the Greens getting more than a handful of seats (which would be great in itself), and the SNP could sweep the board in Scotland and only have influence as a king-maker for a coalition (and, another IndyRef at a time chosen by the Scottish Parliament would be the price for that, not support for remaining in the EU).
But couldn't Labour, the SNP, the Greens, and the Lib Dems all agree that if Brexit does happen (suppose the EU won't let the UK go back on Invoking Article 50), and, in the SNP's case, as long as Scotland is still part of the UK, that the UK should stay in the single market - or have something as close to staying in the single market as possible, even if that means accepting the free movement of people/labor in and out of the EU from the UK?
They could but, if you'll forgive me, you're posting like all this is happening in a vacuum where Brexit is the only thing happening. For a tiny number of people on both sides of the debate, that's true. It's also true that it's going to colour every aspect of life in the UK for years, *however* schools, hospitals, defence, everything else has still got to go on and people are being asked to vote on all those things as well.

Even a united position on Brexit is difficult - I wouldn't want to be writing any party's manifesto as the grammarians are going to have to pull off a blinder in terms of the form of words they can get away with using to encourage the core support to stay motivated.

Labour have got something like the 25 most Remain and 25 most Leave seats. Yes, Labour voters mostly voted remain, but how do they square that circle now the genie's out of the bottle?

The Liberals are starting from a really low number of seats, have had a massive boost in membership since the referendum, but have to face the fact that they got down to pretty well their core vote in 2015 and 25% of those voters voted Leave. Yes, they could write them off but it's your activists that deliver the leaflets and knock on doors - which is the grimmest job in the world (having done it myself); do they just hope that the new members will do that instead?

The SNP has probably less to worry about, but even they're not out of the woods. A mate of mine campaigns for them in Govan - talking to him last night he reckons they've got a slight issue with the most purist hardcore indie Scotland campaigners that go and do the door knocking on the street also voting Leave. Don't be surprised if even the SNP's manifesto ends up talking about "closest possible relationship with the EU" but stops short of committing to EU membership.

The whole thing's got people on the ship very excited (me included) but I really don't think we're representative of the real world. A "progressive alliance" is doomed a) because Jeremy ruled it out last night, b) because it's what did for Labour last time "Labour's dog is going to be wagged by the Scottish Nationalist tail" goes down well in England as an attack line, and c) because people are tribal, and don't want to have to vote Labour because the Liberals have stood down to give them a free run in their seat (for example).

Informal things may happen at a local level, but that's just IMO going to add to the chaos on election night. Tories to win by 40 I reckon, but with radically different seats to what they have now. Other parties also to have a complete mixed bag in their seat tallies of safe seats they were lucky to hold and seats they shouldn't have won in their wildest dreams.

If you can stay detached from the fact that peoples' lives are in the balance (ok big ask), it's going to be fascinating.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
I've just seen today's Daily Mirror - the *Daily Mirror* page 6-7 warning that any Labour MP with a majority under 5,000 is at "serious risk" - that's 25% of them.

Dear God in heaven.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
A problem with campaigning on reversing Brexit is whether it can be reversed. Article 50 has now been invoked. There's no explicit provision in the treaty to 'uninvoke' it. In theory the ECJ could rule that it contains an implicit power, but I imagine it would be impossible to get a ruling prior to the election. The only alternative is if the 27 other member states agreed to an 'uninvocation'. Risky: their price might be surrender of all the UK's opt-outs.

The reality is that the UK has crossed the Rubicon and all parties' campaign strategy has to take account of that.

I have heard a few more reasons for the PM calling the election.

1. As Brexit will take more than 3 years she wants to re-set the electoral cycle so that she doesn't face an election amidst negotiation.

2. There are rumours that Corbyn will step down of Labour's forthcoming local elections are poor. She wants to face Corbyn in a general election.

3. She wants to pursue a hard Brexit and so needs a big majority to sideline pesky backbenchers..

4. She wants to pursue a soft Brexit and sideline other pesky backbenchers.

5. She wants to lock in gain of support from UKIP.

6. She is worried about a Lib Dem resurgence. A Lib Dem resurgence to 16% could mean a swathe of Tory seats across the south of England reverting to the Lib Dems. I don't see it myself. The Lib Dems are only 3% up in the polls from their 2015 debacle. They would probably need to be at 16% to take those seats, and even if the Tories' vote didn't increase, which it probably will.

It's clear that the 2015 election - other than in Scotland - witnessed a large rightward shift, not to the Tories (whose vote hardly increased) but to UKIP. That UKIP vote is now trickling across to the Tories.

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Dear God, how depressing it all is.
[Disappointed]

Where's that bottle of single malt?
[Help]

IJ

I'm currently halfway through a glass of Ben Nevis 10 but it isn't very nice, if that's any consolation. If someone could recommend me some sherry monsters I'd be very much obliged.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But couldn't Labour, the SNP, the Greens, and the Lib Dems all agree that if Brexit does happen (suppose the EU won't let the UK go back on Invoking Article 50), and, in the SNP's case, as long as Scotland is still part of the UK, that the UK should stay in the single market - or have something as close to staying in the single market as possible, even if that means accepting the free movement of people/labor in and out of the EU from the UK?

It should be possible. Though it still doesn't leave a voting option for those of us who think that leaving the EU is a totally idiotic move based on the results of a poorly conceived and executed referendum. But, we've already done the stupid stuff and can't go back to where we were, even if we revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU the political realities of our relations with the other nations in Europe have already been changed.

So, as a pragmatic option I would think a common position on Brexit (eg: to seek to maintain single market membership, similar to Norway) should work. Then people can vote for any of the non-Tory parties based on the rest of their policies according to their views on those rather than turn the election into a multi-way vote on different forms of Brexit. It would result in a majority of voters going for the non-Tory parties, hence even if the Tories increase their majority they can't argue that they have a popular vote mandate for their Brexit strategy. Which would just continue the mess they've got themselves and the country into.

Though there are too many people in the leadership of parties who wouldn't recognise pragmatism if it stamped on their foot. So, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen - no matter how much scope there is for giving the Tories a really hard time.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've just seen today's Daily Mirror - the *Daily Mirror* page 6-7 warning that any Labour MP with a majority under 5,000 is at "serious risk" - that's 25% of them.

Dear God in heaven.

You shouldn't be reading the red-tops. It's bad for your health.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't think a formal coalition is needed. If the Tories try to run a minority government, all that is needed is for everyone else to vote together to vote out the Grand Repeal bill and assorted bollocks.

Of course Corbyn doesn't want to tell everyone today that he'd form a coalition with the SNP. Coalitions form after the poll not before it, electoral pacts - which are much more informal - are far more likely on a local level, it seems to me.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've just seen today's Daily Mirror - the *Daily Mirror* page 6-7 warning that any Labour MP with a majority under 5,000 is at "serious risk" - that's 25% of them.

Dear God in heaven.

You shouldn't be reading the red-tops. It's bad for your health.
It is, but we have them all in our office - useful for knowing what people are being told...
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the Tories try to run a minority government

with the polls as they are, that's not on the cards either...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
with the polls as they are, that's not on the cards either...

As I said above, I think there is at least a chance that the polls are wrong.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.

To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
In my post earlier I was talking about self-identifying Trotskyists. There are about 200 of them. Momementum are less as Trotskyist than the CoE is Forward in Faith.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.

To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
This is about as accurate as calling Theresa May a fascist.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
....there are a lot of ordinary Party members who prefer doctrinal purity to electability.

Including, quite possibly, it's Leader.
Which is why news interviewers seem to adore sitting in front of JC, asking if he is 100% committed to Labour winning the next Election, then watching for a tell-tale response.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people

And yet an awful lot of people from his own part of the political spectrum find him difficult to work with ...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
with the polls as they are, that's not on the cards either...

As I said above, I think there is at least a chance that the polls are wrong.
A very good chance, I'd say. I'm not ruling out a hung parliament.

On the subject of May wanting to increase her majority in order to nullify her pesky rebellious backbenchers, I'm not 100% sure that we know which rebellious backbenchers that means. It could well be the case that she favours a "soft" Brexit (she was on the Remain side of the referendum, remember) but doesn't have enough seats to get it past the headbangers as things stand, but with an increased majority of Remain-leaning Tories she could push far harder for a Norway-style solution.

After all, a softer Brexit would be better for business, and we all know the Tories are the Party of Big Business...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people

And yet an awful lot of people from his own part of the political spectrum find him difficult to work with ...
But they're all critics of Corbyn. Nothing they say can possibly be true.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people

And yet an awful lot of people from his own part of the political spectrum find him difficult to work with ...
But they're all critics of Corbyn. Nothing they say can possibly be true.
That reminds me of someone else who was considered unelectable ...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I've met Corbyn: first when he was my local councillor (truly dreadful, everything, but everything, was related to the class struggle) and then socially through a relative.

I have to tell you, the thought of this man as PM is terrifying for the simple reason that he is really, really THICK. Even if you leave to one side the fact that he could start an argument if left in a room by himself, he really isn't very bright. To be blunt, I'd be more sanguine about Ken Livingstone as prospective PM than Corbyn (I can't believe I just wrote that but...) [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've met Corbyn: first when he was my local councillor (truly dreadful, everything, but everything, was related to the class struggle) and then socially through a relative.

I have to tell you, the thought of this man as PM is terrifying for the simple reason that he is really, really THICK. Even if you leave to one side the fact that he could start an argument if left in a room by himself, he really isn't very bright. To be blunt, I'd be more sanguine about Ken Livingstone as prospective PM than Corbyn (I can't believe I just wrote that but...) [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

I appreciate that this is the internet and therefore you can all choose to believe me or not but I second this entirely.

A relative (female FWIW) knew him well politically and socially through Islington Militant in the early 80s - she was a member - and her take on him is similar, though less restrained in the language.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
On the tactical voting question someone raised last night, apparently Gina Miller (who took the government to court in order to force a parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50) is behind an attempt at "the biggest tactical vote ever".

Here is The Independent report on it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Here is The Independent report on it.

Not sure why tactical voting requires a huge centralised website.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.

To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
Momentum members look like old-fashioned Clause 4 Labourites to me. That's a long way from any kind of Trot. Some are Marxist-Leninists, but that isn't Trotskyist either. Do get your Socialists right please.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Most people who contemplate tactical voting would presumably know (or, be able to find out easily enough) which candidate is most likely to beat the Tory candidate (or, Labour etc depending on who you want to keep out). That just requires looking at past voting patterns (the BBC has an extensive database of election results, other sources of such information are available).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people who contemplate tactical voting would presumably know (or, be able to find out easily enough) which candidate is most likely to beat the Tory candidate (or, Labour etc depending on who you want to keep out). That just requires looking at past voting patterns (the BBC has an extensive database of election results, other sources of such information are available).

Indeed.

Without prejudice as to whether or not it might be a good thing, this does feel more like a Continuity Remain data-harvesting exercise...
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people who contemplate tactical voting would presumably know (or, be able to find out easily enough) which candidate is most likely to beat the Tory candidate (or, Labour etc depending on who you want to keep out). That just requires looking at past voting patterns (the BBC has an extensive database of election results, other sources of such information are available).

Yes, but clearly her objective is to clarify the attitude of each candidate regarding Brexit, which is not necessarily as clear, as some candidates might not have any voting record to go on.

For her it's clearly not about party but about that single issue. So you need to know which candidate you are aiming for and against on that one issue.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

For her (the PM) it's clearly not about party but about that single issue. So you need to know which candidate you are aiming for and against on that one issue.

While it is a single issue it does not have a single potential outcome. Between the "Norway Position" through what appears to be the "Golden Option" (Single market of goods and services but no freedom of movement) to a simple Hard Brexit followed by decades of trade negotiations, there must be dozens of possibilities.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

For her (the PM) it's clearly not about party but about that single issue. So you need to know which candidate you are aiming for and against on that one issue.

While it is a single issue it does not have a single potential outcome. Between the "Norway Position" through what appears to be the "Golden Option" (Single market of goods and services but no freedom of movement) to a simple Hard Brexit followed by decades of trade negotiations, there must be dozens of possibilities.
Yes, she's obviously aiming for at least that level of knowledge

quote:
Gina Miller said the group called Best for Britain will aim to back parliamentary candidates from all parties “who campaign for a real final vote on Brexit, including rejecting any deal that leaves Britain worse off.”
It just doesn't really help much as it doesn't strengthen our position with the people we are negotiating with, in my opinion. Nor does it help if your preferred Brexit candidate sucks on other issues that are important to you...
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Quite, and I'm really hoping that the penny is going to drop with more people in the next seven weeks that while this might partially be seen/framed as a second go at the Brexit referendum it's also a General Election.

If Brexit is the single most important thing in a person's life then they should vote for the person that most reflects their stance on Brexit.

They should be aware however that this does mean they may be voting in favour of a host of other things they really don't believe in/want at the same time and be prepared to live with that.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.

To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
Momentum members look like old-fashioned Clause 4 Labourites to me. That's a long way from any kind of Trot. Some are Marxist-Leninists, but that isn't Trotskyist either. Do get your Socialists right please.
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist, one of which is the Socialist Party who as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition which also include RMT members, who represent a bigger group.

A grand total of 92 TUSC members joined the Labour Party in 2015. That's out of 350,000 who either joined the party as members or supporters during the leadership campaign of 2015 or shortly afterwards. The TUSC entry into Labour that period represents 0.03% of Labour members and supporters.

The Socialist Workers' Party were also part of the TUSC and put forward "dozens" of candidates in the 2015 election. The SWP claimed (in 2015) that they have 6,000 members. Let's be really very generous and say that all of them joined the Labour Party in 2015. That would represent 1.7% of new members.

The Communist Party of Great Britain had about 45 members in 2015. If all of them were to join, that would represent 0.01% new members.

Now, we're talking about the Labour party here. With regards to Momentum, they started taking in members in April 2016 and had 20,000 members and 170,000 supporters in the October of that year. So let's say that all of those previously mentioned groups who previously had joined Labour joined Momentum in 2016. Calculating this is not easy as some TUSC members were also SWP members, but still, let's be generous and say that they were not. That would represent a total of 3.23% of Momentum members are Trotkyists.

Even in the wildest Trotskyist dreams, Momentum are no Trotskyist party. In fact, from December 2015, members of other political parties are not allowed to take part and vote in discussions about the Labour Party.

So Sioni Saes is right. Enoch is wrong. I'm not sure that most members are the old Clause IV types, though. I guess (I don't have statistics to hand) that many are younger than 30 for whom the Clause IV is not much of an issue, though they would support it.

In the meantime, I'll try again: Given what Marvin said earlier are there any Labour members here who value purity over election success?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Given that I strongly suspect Momentum members of covert collaboration with the Conservatives in a local by-election for local party-political reasons, I'm afraid I don't have a great deal of faith in the 'purity' of their position ...

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

The Lib Dems are still smarting from the Coalition.

I don't expect a great deal of 'purity' from the Labour Party given how I've seen them act over the years.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist

OK perhaps Trotskyist or Trotskyite the way it was bandied about in the 1970's and 80's isn't an accurate description of movements such as Momentum, but many of its older members are survivors of Militant Tendency, which was expelled from the Labour Party in the 1980's. So let's make no mistake about who these people are and the malign influence they have in the British political system. And of course

John McDonnell makes no secret of his hero worship of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, whose Little Red Book he's been seen to quote from in the House of Commons. I want to see a Labour Party I can vote for with the enthusiasm I had in 1997. But I would move heaven and earth to keep this shower of shit as far from power as possible even if it means voting Tory.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist

OK perhaps Trotskyist or Trotskyite the way it was bandied about in the 1970's and 80's isn't an accurate description of movements such as Momentum, but many of its older members are survivors of Militant Tendency, which was expelled from the Labour Party in the 1980's. So let's make no mistake about who these people are and the malign influence they have in the British political system. And of course

John McDonnell makes no secret of his hero worship of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, whose Little Red Book he's been seen to quote from in the House of Commons. I want to see a Labour Party I can vote for with the enthusiasm I had in 1997. But I would move heaven and earth to keep this shower of shit as far from power as possible even if it means voting Tory.

To get any evidence to back up the claim of your first paragraph? Perhaps one could read this views of someone who used to be in Militant for some enlightenment.

You seem to have forgotten the context of McDonnell's quoting of Mao.

Context
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Re: Trots - I'm willing to bet good money that not 1 in 10 people who use the word can name any of the distinctive features of Trotskyism without googling.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Given that I strongly suspect Momentum members of covert collaboration with the Conservatives in a local by-election for local party-political reasons, I'm afraid I don't have a great deal of faith in the 'purity' of their position ...

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Fascinating, I'd very much like to hear more about this if it is at all possible. I can't imagine a circumstance where Momentum Labour people collaborate with a Tory - that's quite mind-bending.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be fair, I think 'Twats' rather than 'Trots' would be a better description of some of our Momentum friends.

The issue, it seems to me, isn't so much what label we attach to their ideology but the way they behave.

At least with the Conservatives you know you need to count your fingers after you've shaken hands with them.

I'm sorry, but I've seen enough of the hard Left at work to put me off ... they are the political equivalent of the most rigid of evangelical fundamentalists.

Kinnock had the right idea.

Purge them before it's too late.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Given that I strongly suspect Momentum members of covert collaboration with the Conservatives in a local by-election for local party-political reasons, I'm afraid I don't have a great deal of faith in the 'purity' of their position ...

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Fascinating, I'd very much like to hear more about this if it is at all possible. I can't imagine a circumstance where Momentum Labour people collaborate with a Tory - that's quite mind-bending.
I'm happy to deal with this by PM rather than on a public forum. It surprised me too. Nothing would surprise me now.

Believe you me, these people are so Machiavellian they will stop at nothing. Nothing.

I'm not in the Labour Party but if I were I'd be purging them. Kinnock had it right.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
I know that no Party Pamphlet or Manifesto is any other than a 'wish List' as circumstances often force a complete change of direction. So I look at my Candidates as I would as if I a Felon. Who would I like to be my Brief if I am up before the Judge ? Which one is best going to get me off the charge? Who is the most capable ? I don't have to like them or agree with their approach. All I want is the most capable person possible.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Yeah, that 2% of new party members are like a yeast that will grow and grow. Before we know it, we'll have gulags all over the place.

Give me a hard-left-winger over someone who abstained on the Welfare Bill of 2015 (like all of the candidates in the 2015 apart from Corbyn) or the likes of Farron who voted for raising tuition fees, introducing child benefit means testing, raising debt; introducing the bedroom tax and the benefits cap; cut tax for millionaires and a massive attack on social services.

But no, let's talk about a miniscule group who have no influence whatsoever on Labour policy.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
AIUI, the reason why Trotskyists were so destructive in the '70s and '80s was because they used to deliberately make impossible demands, precisely because the impossibility of those demands demonstrated the incapacity of the system to produce real change.

Whereas AFAICT, most members of Momentum genuinely believe that what they want to achieve can be achieved through the Labour Party with Mr Corbyn as leader.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Give me a hard-left-winger over someone who abstained on the Welfare Bill of 2015 (like all of the candidates in the 2015 apart from Corbyn)

They voted to amend out all the objectionable bits of the Bill. Once the amendments had been voted down they abstained because there were positive bits of the Bill and they didn't want Osborne smirking that they'd voted against the positive bits every time they came up for the next five years.
You might or might not think that was the right strategy. But it's not the case that they meekly rolled over.

On the other hand when the amendment to grant citizenship rights to EU nationals was defeated many of them just voted through the Brexit Bill anyway. So you could get them for that. Except of course they did so because Corbyn decided that was a good time to impose a three line whip in advance. It's one thing to sacrifice competence for principles. Corbyn managed to spectacularly sacrifice both.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, it's nothing about gulags or anything of the kind. Common decency wouldn't be too much to ask, though, would it?

In another context I'm sure they'd have been all sweetness and light ... but there is something toxic about Momentum, in the same way as there is something quite toxic about religious fundamentalism.

Acknowledging as much doesn't let any of the others off the hook ...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

In another context I'm sure they'd have been all sweetness and light ... but there is something toxic about Momentum, in the same way as there is something quite toxic about religious fundamentalism.

In general I've not had the same experience as you - at least among the newer members of momentum. Some of the older members are the remnants of former Trotsykite groups and some are fairly unpleasant, but about on par with some of the younger conservative activists I know (aka the Lynton Crosby tendency).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Party member here.

Nah, he's not talking for me.

Is he talking for any party member here?

Yes
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've met Corbyn: first when he was my local councillor (truly dreadful, everything, but everything, was related to the class struggle)

That's because virtually everything is so related.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Chris Stiles. Sure. I'd make no distinction between toxic young Tory activists and toxic young Momentum ones.

They are equally toxic.

The issue is less one of ideology and more an issue of fundamentalist zealotry and toxicity.

My sympathies lie leftwards but that doesn't mean I let one form of toxicity off the hook and not another.

Young Tories - toxic.

Momentum - toxic.

Political and religious fundamentalism - toxic.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Today it emerges that Len McCluskey's rival for the leadership of the Unite union, Gerard Coyne, has been suspended as a union official while the union decides if he brought it into disrepute by speaking out against McClusky. It's said that the count for the leadership is too close to call. Bearing in mind that McClusky is Jeremy Corbyn's biggest financial backer, while Coyne favours Labour's Deputy Tom Watson, do we detect that the Left is trying to prevent Coyne from taking over the union even if he wins the ballot?

Last year when Gerard Coyne indicated that he was considering standing against McCluskey he was disciplined by the party for speaking at an event organised by Labour MP's Chuka Ununna and Tristram Hunt. As both Umunna and Hunt had refused to serve in Corby's shadow cabinet, Coyne was given a written warning that his conduct was as odds "with Unite's political vision." Being at odds with the hard left of McCluskey, who wants to ally Unite with Momentum rather than the Labour Party, doesn't necessarily equate with being at odds with the ordinary membership of the Union. If Coyne wins the ballot and is prevented from taking up his position by this leftie inspired skulduggery, it will reveal how dangerous Labour is unless it can free itself from the likes of McCluskey and Momentum.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I don't hold much brief for Labour Progress group as manifested in Lambeth either. Not only do they ignore the public in deciding to close libraries and lease the buildings to gyms, they do so by sending photos of kittens to the people who communicate with them.

The Momentum lot there seem to be more reasonable.

Labour in Southwark seem to be much more normal. (Despite that ridiculous bridge.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As both Umunna and Hunt had refused to serve in Corby's shadow cabinet, Coyne was given a written warning that his conduct was as odds "with Unite's political vision."

Unite is a Trade Union. Surely its "political vision" must be the political vision of its members, and not the political vision of Len McCluskey.

Mr. Coyne and Mr. McCluskey have different ideas about what the union should do. Is this not why we have elections - so that each man can present his platform, and the membership can choose between them?

Right now I do see someone bringing Unite into disrepute, but it's not Mr. Coyne.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Chris Stiles. Sure. I'd make no distinction between toxic young Tory activists and toxic young Momentum ones.

Absolutely, except I would draw a distinction between individuals and the movement. I don't think Momentum as a movement is intrinsically toxic in the way you seem to describe - completely agree on a few individuals within it.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
EU leader: UK would be welcomed back if voters overturn Brexit

quote:
Speaking after a meeting with the prime minister in Downing Street, Antonio Tajani insisted that her triggering of the departure process last month could be reversed easily by the remaining EU members if there was a change of UK government after the general election, and that it would not even require a court case.
So it looks like the other 27 states would be happy. Now, if all Remainers vote for the Lib Dems..
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, if the Lib Dems were to actually want to reverse Brexit
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I suspect they might with a bit of voter momentum.

(Not that I see the LDs getting 48%, but it's interesting to speculate).
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, if the Lib Dems were to actually want to reverse Brexit

I suppose that the Lib Dems found themselves in power they might decide to take it as a mandate to do so. Once they've stopped pinching themselves that is. If your party isn't composed of xenophobic gits why would you want the economic consequences of leaving to happen on your watch?

[ 20. April 2017, 19:10: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Absolutely, except I would draw a distinction between individuals and the movement. I don't think Momentum as a movement is intrinsically toxic in the way you seem to describe - completely agree on a few individuals within it.

Agreed. Plus I've found way more toxic people on the right of the Labour party than on the left. The shit flinging by Progress and their fellow travellers has been a thing to behold over the last 2 years.

[ 20. April 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Speaking after a meeting with the prime minister in Downing Street, Antonio Tajani insisted that her triggering of the departure process last month could be reversed easily by the remaining EU members if there was a change of UK government after the general election, and that it would not even require a court case.
So it looks like the other 27 states would be happy. Now, if all Remainers vote for the Lib Dems..
It was never down to the British as to whether we leave. Article 50 nitwithstanding if the 27 say we stay then we stay. That has always been the bottom line. The Brexit vote was about a desire to leave, but it was never our decision, the decision as to whether we leave has always been with the EU members, and nowhere else.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It was never down to the British as to whether we leave. Article 50 nitwithstanding if the 27 say we stay then we stay. That has always been the bottom line. The Brexit vote was about a desire to leave, but it was never our decision, the decision as to whether we leave has always been with the EU members, and nowhere else.

No, garbage. The 27 cannot force a state to remain part of the EU.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
That is the process:
Fist Article 50
Then negotiations
Finally the vote of the EU members.

That is the only vote that counts, not the referendum, not the parliamentary votes, not this June's General Election. The above are important, but the actal leave decision is made by the EU states.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:


That is the only vote that counts, not the referendum, not the parliamentary votes, not this June's General Election. The above are important, but the actal leave decision is made by the EU states.

No, sorry that's bullshit. The EU was set up by nations which volunteered to surrender some powers for the sake of the thing which became the EU. Of course nobody can tell an independent state that they're not allowed to leave a super-national group they've volunteered to join in the first place. If that really was the case then the UK wouldn't be a nation state at all.

What the EU and European Parliament are deciding is on the "divorce" that they're prepared to offer and/or accept the UK. The UK can clearly walk away, what it can't do is do it on its own terms.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Now, if all Remainers vote for the Lib Dems..

I'm not speaking for my own opinion here, but I can't understand how any passionate Remainer in England could vote any other way than Lib Dem. They are the only party totally committed to reversing the decision made last June. Of course the Scots have their own option in the SNP. Lib Dem support should surge in this forthcoming election.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Don't get me wrong, I've got a lot of time for young Labour Party activists I know.

But I'm not at all impressed by Momentum - or individuals within it. If what I've seen is in any way typical then they deserve to be purged.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
The Labour Party will have a narrow window of opportunity following the June GE which ironically will be better the worse they do in the vote. If they totally tank, many will want Corbyn's scalp. The remaining decent MP's and party members can then get together and find a leader that they, the party and hopefully the electorate can rally around. Corbyn and his cronies were caught on the hop by the snap election in that they won't have time to deselect candidates who oppose Corbyn. But Jezza has already said that when the boundry changes come in next year, all Labour candidates will need to be reselected. If Momentum is established in charge of the local constituencies by then, the heart of the party will have been lost to the hard left, and anti-Corbiystas will be eliminated.

In the 2010 leadership contest between David Miliband and his brother Ed, the parliamentary party and the constituency parties voted for David. That's how any normal political organisation would select its leader. But it's only the rotten process of allowing the Union block votes that let in Red Ed. The Ed who reintroduced entryism and allowed the £3 Trots to choose the next leader. Come back David and save the party.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist

OK perhaps Trotskyist or Trotskyite the way it was bandied about in the 1970's and 80's isn't an accurate description of movements such as Momentum, but many of its older members are survivors of Militant Tendency, which was expelled from the Labour Party in the 1980's. So let's make no mistake about who these people are and the malign influence they have in the British political system. And of course

John McDonnell makes no secret of his hero worship of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, whose Little Red Book he's been seen to quote from in the House of Commons. I want to see a Labour Party I can vote for with the enthusiasm I had in 1997. But I would move heaven and earth to keep this shower of shit as far from power as possible even if it means voting Tory.

To get any evidence to back up the claim of your first paragraph?
Perhaps my mistake "to get" instead of "you got" confused you, and that's why you haven't answered my question.

Or perhaps you can indicate just how a maximum of 2% of members can destroy the party?

In other news, for everyone else,how many of Labour's policies do you actually disagree with?

The article says "Corbyn's policies", when in fact these are not just his.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... (Not that I see the LDs getting 48%, but it's interesting to speculate).

Nor, even if they get the sort of win they'd like to get, will the Conservatives get 48%, yet alone 52%. It's only ever been in the eras when there were actually or de facto only two parties that anyone has got such a proportion of the votes. Even Tony Blair in 1997, with a majority of 179 got that on only 42% of the vote.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
... In other news, for everyone else,how many of Labour's policies do you actually disagree with?

The article says "Corbyn's policies", when in fact these are not just his.

Leaving out the vague ones and the ones he hasn't really shown he would do anything credible about like 'Holding the Tories to account over Brexit', I reckon I disagree with over half of them. And I'm not a Conservative. I'd be hard pushed to say which of the Corbyn-McDonnell Labour Party or the Brexit Conservatives stands lower in my estimation.

[ 20. April 2017, 22:22: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's said that the count for the leadership is too close to call.

Really ? Said by whom ? The main source of this is Laura Kussenberg.

For the record coyne was originally nominated by 187 branches, McCluskey by 1,185. It's highly unlikely it was all that close.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Perhaps my mistake "to get" instead of "you got" confused you, and that's why you haven't answered my question

There is plenty of evidence of the connection between Momentum and Militant and other hard left organisations associated with the Labour Party in the 1980's. I would agree with the commentator that Momentum should be proscribed. The rest of my paragraph was my personal opinion that Momentum is a malign influence on the Labour Party and British politics. I stand by that.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
For the record coyne was originally nominated by 187 branches, McCluskey by 1,185. It's highly unlikely it was all that close.

Well I'll wait until the results are published before commenting on them. But that these people's block votes should have any bearing on a Labour leadership contest is an affront to democracy.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

For the record coyne was originally nominated by 187 branches, McCluskey by 1,185. It's highly unlikely it was all that close.

How do the branches choose who to nominate? Do they poll their members, or does the branch leadership pick someone?

(For the record, Jeremy Corbyn was nominated by almost nobody in the election for Labour leader, a bunch of Blairites had to be persuaded to nominate him in order to get him on the ballot, and then he won by a country mile. So if your electorate is different from the people doing the nominating, these things happen.)
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Can we stop with the ignorant bullshit about block votes? Unions haven't had a block vote in leadership elections in over two decades. If you're going to comment on Labour's internal politics at least get some bloody clue what you're talking about. The effect of the electoral college was to give union members an individual vote but to weight those of MPs and party members more heavily.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Perhaps my mistake "to get" instead of "you got" confused you, and that's why you haven't answered my question

There is plenty of evidence of the connection between Momentum and Militant and other hard left organisations associated with the Labour Party in the 1980's.
Ah, the Socialist Party. I mentioned them earlier:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist, one of which is the Socialist Party who as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition which also include RMT members, who represent a bigger group.

A grand total of 92 TUSC members joined the Labour Party in 2015. That's out of 350,000 who either joined the party as members or supporters during the leadership campaign of 2015 or shortly afterwards. The TUSC entry into Labour that period represents 0.03% of Labour members and supporters.

The article you provided a link to says:

quote:
1,000 are believed to be members of other far-left parties.
Italics mine.

You'll have to do better than that to provide evidence.

Even if it was true, those 1,000 people would represent 0.52% of Momemtum members and supporters in 2016.

Did you read this article that I provided a link to , which is written by someone with experience of both Militant and Momemtum? Would you care to respond?

quote:
I would agree with the commentator that Momentum should be proscribed. The rest of my paragraph was my personal opinion that Momentum is a malign influence on the Labour Party and British politics. I stand by that.
So you'd ban a movement due to 0.52% of its members? You're hardly Abraham arguing with God here. Nah, I support democracy, myself.

With regards to Gamaliel's accusations, what he says may be true, but we haven't heard the other side here, and if Gamaliel is in an opposing party, his judgement may not be unbiased. Still, Gamaliel, are you saying that collaboration with the Tories is a bad thing? What you could do would be to provide me privately details of your claim, and I could try to contact the local Momemtum branch to find out their side of story; me as a Labour party member may be able to gain that.

Of course, even if there are individual Momemtum members who are twats, well shock horror, people can be twats, to paraphrase Romans 3:23. That says nothing about Momemtum itself.

It's interesting to see people making Labour to be just as bad or worse than the Tories, the Tories who have, through their (and Lib Dem) policies seen over 1m people needing foodbanks, a 33% rise in homelessness in England and a wave upon wave of suicide due to DWP sanctions. Fair enough if people vote Tory, I can get that, and have known sound people who do so. Just that making Labour to be as bad or as worse based upon current policy just doesn't hold.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

In other news, for everyone else,how many of Labour's policies do you actually disagree with?

1. My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such. There's no point having good ideas if you don't have the organisational skills to implement them. And if one is serious about opposing the economics of austerity, I don't see the value in supporting a bloke whom anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in.

2. If Mr Corbyn has struggled to get his message across to the media, that could be due to the well-documented problems with his media team. Or his ability to announce one policy in the morning and a different one in the afternoon. Or the inability of even his allies to articulate what he actually wants to achieve in concrete terms.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such.

Well I disagree with his policies as well. Pumping £500 billion into an already debt ridden economy is a complete folly which will store up untold troubles for future generations.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Evidence shows that the Tories have been the biggest borrowers over the past 70 years. This article shows that:

quote:
Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years.
and

quote:
First, Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.

And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average.

Furthermore, since 2010, the debt has written by 50%. Sauce

To conclude, if you want a government who burdens the state with less debt, vote Labour.

Of course, that 500bn investment would be to boost the economy and provide jobs and housing. It wouldn't be for bonuses for bankers, subsidised by government.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Is any party proposing raising (direct) taxation - and not just on the rich - to pay for their spending plans?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such.

Well I disagree with his policies as well. Pumping £500 billion into an already debt ridden economy is a complete folly which will store up untold troubles for future generations.
That's a fairly good example of the distinction I'm making. AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt, and I see no evidence to suggest Mr Corbyn possesses the requisite financial acumen to ensure this would happen.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The "cut national debt at all costs" is a relatively modern economic theory held by a minority of right-wing economists, but it's loved by right-wing politicians because they can sell it as like cutting household debt (which people can understand), even though the analogy is weak at best (totally misleading would be a better description). That left-leaning economists and politicians favour other economic theories doesn't make them wrong, unless you have an a-priori reason to trust right winger over left wingers.

The left tend to invest, even if that's at the expense of borrowing. And, well planned investments pay back. Invest in the care sector such that people can be looked after at home (or, even better support themselves) and you get pay back from reductions in hospital stays (which are much more expensive). Invest in education and you get the skilled workforce for future economic growth. Invest in public transport and you get people to and from work more easily, and increase productivity. Invest in affordable and social housing in locations near where people work and you reduce commute times - with less tired staff and increased productivity.

Rewarding bankers who wreck the economy with bail-outs doesn't seem to be giving any return to the public purse.

There's a difference between "tax and spend" and "tax and invest".
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such.

Well I disagree with his policies as well. Pumping £500 billion into an already debt ridden economy is a complete folly which will store up untold troubles for future generations.
That's a fairly good example of the distinction I'm making. AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt, and I see no evidence to suggest Mr Corbyn possesses the requisite financial acumen to ensure this would happen.
And George Osborne? No "What if?" is needed. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer and he was a bloody awful Chancellor of the Exchequer. The worst for decades if not centuries. Wedded to the concept of "Austerity" even when six years of it had achieved nothing. Hammond looks a genius by comparison. Corbyn, or better still another anti-Brexit PM could find a better chancellor by hooking a random stranger off the street.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt

The idea that there are no 'shovel ready' programs in the UK is somewhat laughable given the parlous state of the country's infrastructure. Additionally, a significant amount of the cuts have been directed maintenance of existing infrastructure - which will build up to a very expensive bill in the future (roads being the obvious example), on balance even reversing these cuts alone would have a salutary effect and will actually save money in the future.

and you aren't necessarily betting on Corbyn's financial acumen, rather than acumen of the kinds of people he is likely to appoint.

[ 21. April 2017, 10:18: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Additionally, a significant amount of the cuts have been directed maintenance of existing infrastructure - which will build up to a very expensive bill in the future (roads being the obvious example)

Which is an example of what happens when you're only looking at the balance sheet for the current year, or even Parliamentary term. Even if the cuts in investment were resulting in a cut in current government borrowing (which they aren't), the resulting reduction in national debt is only in current cash flow - it's also building a debt of future work (which doesn't go into the books for this year, and so is invisible if that's all you look at). In the medium-long term investment in maintaining infrastructure reduces debt - but only if you look at the larger picture rather than the current set of books.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt

The idea that there are no 'shovel ready' programs in the UK is somewhat laughable given the parlous state of the country's infrastructure.
And yet nowhere on the Labour Party website* can I find any specifics on which of those shovel-ready infrastructure projects is going to be funded by this £500bn investment. High-Speed Rail across the Pennines? Dedicated freight lines to separate freight and passenger traffic on the railways? An M62 relief road round Manchester? Expanded ports for post-Panamax container traffic? The impression given is that he pitched for a nice dramatic round number first, and will work out how to spend it later.

(This is also an example of Mr Corbyn's atrocious media management. If he had specified the projects he wanted first, and then said 'funded by borrowing, to be recouped by the economic benefits of the infrastructure', then Labour would have a chance of being 'the party that will give us new railways (or whatever)'. Instead, by making the £500bn the headline announcement, with only the vaguest indication of where the £500bn is going, he ensures that Labour instead becomes 'the party who will add £500bn to the national debt', because that is the only specific thing he has said about the investment.)
quote:

and you aren't necessarily betting on Corbyn's financial acumen, rather than acumen of the kinds of people he is likely to appoint.

Well, given Mr Corbyn's current record of appointing people (e.g. to his media team), and his aforementioned inability to work with people who are on the same part of the political spectrum as him, that's not a bet I'm willing to take.

---
* Which admittedly makes your average church website look like a textbook example of usability.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Or the inability of even his allies to articulate what he actually wants to achieve in concrete terms.

On the other hand, I'm not seeing any evidence that Theresa May is any better at making concrete policy proposals. She's just got a better media operation that is better at hiding it.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Or the inability of even his allies to articulate what he actually wants to achieve in concrete terms.

On the other hand, I'm not seeing any evidence that Theresa May is any better at making concrete policy proposals. She's just got a better media operation that is better at hiding it.
Being scrupulously fair to all sides on this one, we're presumably about to get manifestos
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
we're presumably about to get manifestos

Yes you are [Big Grin]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Who would British companies (and wealthy people) likely to be financially damaged by Brexit (think companies dependent on exports to the EU, City of London Financial firms, etc.) donate to in this election?
Would they donate to the Lib Dems in order to try to reduce the risk they would lose financial passporting in Brexit (in the case of the City) or face tariffs or regulatory burdens in exporting to the EU (even if Brexit happens anyway)? Or would they donate to Tory candidates who are in favor of a softer Brexit and are willing to compromise on issues like immigration to defend passporting and the ability for UK exports to compete with EU firms on a level playing field? Does anyone know what donations are already being made by various business interests and to what parties/candidates within the parties?
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
The EU countries and UK both want to keep trading with each other with No Barriers. The EU are going to find it very difficult without the UKs financial contribution. Therefore they will want some recompense in exchange. That's all the Negotiations are about - £££££s. It doesn't matter who is in power. Don't worry about Brexit.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
It is possible that May has called the election now because (apart from wanting to take advantage of Labour's dire straits) she wants a bigger majority & longer time window in which to negotiate a business-friendly Brexit (continuity of open markets & cheap labour.) This is what the Tory donors want but it is definitely not what the folks who voted Brexit had in mind. By the time they work out they've been conned she'll have had a good innings and it'll be time to hand over to the next guy/gal.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
a business-friendly Brexit (continuity of open markets & cheap labour.) This is what the Tory donors want but it is definitely not what the folks who voted Brexit had in mind. By the time they work out they've been conned she'll have had a good innings and it'll be time to hand over to the next guy/gal.

Although oddly it would probably work for the more pragmatic leavers and remainers. Disingenuously and for the wrong reasons getting to a reasonable place.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
and his aforementioned inability to work with people who are on the same part of the political spectrum as him,

You keep repeating this as if it's a known fact, but knowing a fair few people on Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, and knowing a couple of them who have worked with Corbyn for years, it's not supported by the evidence. I know there are people who have refused to work with him, but that doesn't tell us anything about Corbyn's abilities so much as it tells us the sort of petulant sulks that "centrists" get into when they lose internal elections.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
In his first Shadow Cabinet, Corbyn chose the following people:

Angela Eagle, someone who was liked by Blair, voted for the Iraq war (and three times against investigating it).

Andy Burnham, someone who was his main challenger.

Hilary Benn, someone pro-nuclear weapons and of course, someone who supported Burham in the 2015 leadership election.

Chris Bryant, who backed Yvonne Cooper in the leadership election of 2015.

Veron Croaker, who chaired Cooper's leadership campaign.

Maria Eagle, who is pro-Trident.

To summarise, he chose people who think politically different to him. As stated above by Arethosemyfeet, later opposition to him came from the centrists.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
but that doesn't tell us anything about Corbyn's abilities so much as it tells us the sort of petulant sulks that "centrists" get into when they lose internal elections.

Perhaps it not all petulant sulking. There are many of us who are proud to be centrists, who believe that the British people respond best to consensus politics, not to being taken over by McCluskey's evil cabal. The same McCluskey who just got re-elected narrowly on a 12.2% turnout and is already wreaking revenge on the man who dared to challenge him. An inspirational lesson in democracy indeed!
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
and his aforementioned inability to work with people who are on the same part of the political spectrum as him,

You keep repeating this as if it's a known fact, but knowing a fair few people on Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, and knowing a couple of them who have worked with Corbyn for years, it's not supported by the evidence. I know there are people who have refused to work with him, but that doesn't tell us anything about Corbyn's abilities so much as it tells us the sort of petulant sulks that "centrists" get into when they lose internal elections.
Exhibit A: David Blanchflower - no internal elections here
Exhibit B: Simon Wren-Lewis - ditto
Exhibit C: Thomas Piketty - as above; he left due to work commitments but that didn't stop him sticking the boot in on his way out
Exhibit D: Lilian Greenwood - here is her voting record if you want to argue that she is a centrist and doesn't count
Exhibit E: Thangam Debbonaire - for obvious reasons she doesn't have much of a voting record so it's hard to judge if she's a centrist or not
Exhibit F: Kerry McCarthy - here is her voting record - I'll give you her votes relating to defence as taking her outside of Mr Corbyn's part of the Labour spectrum but everything else seems pretty unobjectionable
Exhibit G: Clive Lewis
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
In his first Shadow Cabinet, Corbyn chose the following people:

Angela Eagle, someone who was liked by Blair, voted for the Iraq war (and three times against investigating it).

Andy Burnham, someone who was his main challenger.

Hilary Benn, someone pro-nuclear weapons and of course, someone who supported Burham in the 2015 leadership election.

Chris Bryant, who backed Yvonne Cooper in the leadership election of 2015.

Veron Croaker, who chaired Cooper's leadership campaign.

Maria Eagle, who is pro-Trident.

To summarise, he chose people who think politically different to him. As stated above by Arethosemyfeet, later opposition to him came from the centrists.

And let's not forget that a number of those people spent their time in the shadow cabinet briefing against Corbyn off the record.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Exhibit H: The utter chaos in Mr Corbyn's staff team - again nothing to do with internal elections.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Exhibit H: The utter chaos in Mr Corbyn's staff team - again nothing to do with internal elections.

A bit like the PMs Chief of Staff and Press Secretary leaving the day after she announced the election then?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

To summarise, he chose people who think politically different to him.


I had a fair amount of time for Mr Corbyn during the period his first Shadow Cabinet. But one can't simultaneously say how open-minded Mr Corbyn is for inviting people who disagree with him into his Cabinet, and then complain that those people do in fact disagree with him.
quote:

As stated above by Arethosemyfeet, later opposition to him came from the centrists.

That a particular criticism of Mr Corbyn comes from the centre isn't the knockdown argument against Mr Corbyn's incompetence that his supporters seem to think it is.

The argument seems to be that if centrists makes a complaint against Mr Corbyn, then their complaint must be have a political agenda because they can't tolerate Mr Corbyn's politics, and therefore can be discounted. We might as well say that all of Mr Corbyn's criticisms of Mr Blair are similarly invalid because they were politically motivated or because Mr Corbyn was in a petulant strop that Blairism and not Corbynism was the dominant philosophy in the Labour Party.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Exhibit H: The utter chaos in Mr Corbyn's staff team - again nothing to do with internal elections.

A bit like the PMs Chief of Staff and Press Secretary leaving the day after she announced the election then?
What gives you the impression that I support the PM?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Exhibit H: The utter chaos in Mr Corbyn's staff team - again nothing to do with internal elections.

A bit like the PMs Chief of Staff and Press Secretary leaving the day after she announced the election then?
What gives you the impression that I support the PM?
I don't necessarily. But a couple of people leaving isn't necessarily a indicative of 'utter chaos' - you need to establish a baseline of churn.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I take your point - but as Ms May (in some sources at least) has a reputation for being difficult to work for, I'm not sure that's the baseline I'd choose ...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
So, the two-party paradigm gives you the choice of a PM who is difficult to work for and a PM who is difficult to work for.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I take your point - but as Ms May (in some sources at least) has a reputation for being difficult to work for, I'm not sure that's the baseline I'd choose ...

There is no baseline of anything in this mess that I would choose.

lilBuddha - desperately wishing for an intelligent species to arise or arrive

[ 23. April 2017, 17:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
lilBuddha - desperately wishing for an intelligent species to arise or arrive

That would be the Scots. Nicola for PM?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
E: Thangam Debbonaire[/URL] - for obvious reasons she doesn't have much of a voting record so it's hard to judge if she's a centrist or not

She's my mp and we wouldn't have selected for candidate had she not been left wing.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
lilBuddha - desperately wishing for an intelligent species to arise or arrive

That would be the Scots. Nicola for PM?
PM for an independent Scotland. Let's rebuild Hadrian's wall. I'll walk its ramparts to repel the southern barbarians. We can use Trident to guard the sea borders.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If Corbyn gets in with his Bank Holiday bribe you can keep Trident as he won't be needing it.

[ 23. April 2017, 18:35: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
We might as well say that all of Mr Corbyn's criticisms of Mr Blair are similarly invalid because they were politically motivated or because Mr Corbyn was in a petulant strop that Blairism and not Corbynism was the dominant philosophy in the Labour Party.

The comparison is invalid because Corbyn pretty much always was open about it being Blair's policies he disagreed with. The right of the Labour Party stirred up accusations of incompetence rather than argue for their political ideas (presumably because they either don't have any beyond aping the tories or they know they can't win with them). It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
lilBuddha - desperately wishing for an intelligent species to arise or arrive

That would be the Scots. Nicola for PM?
PM for an independent Scotland. Let's rebuild Hadrian's wall. I'll walk its ramparts to repel the southern barbarians. We can use Trident to guard the sea borders.
You do realise of course that Hadrian's Wall is entirely within England? From Wallsend in the east to Bowness-on Solway in the west.....
Of course Nicola might have some expansionist ideas.....
[Biased]

Actually that sounds like a good idea.....hmmm......I wonder if Wales can get in on the act? I like Scotland
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The right of the Labour Party stirred up accusations of incompetence rather than argue for their political ideas

Did you ever watch the Vice News documentary about Corbyn?

The story in today's Sunday Times about the incompetence of Corbyn's office is quite interesting. Apparently there are tens of thousands of letters to Corbyn that are unopened because no-one has arranged for them to be opened.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.

That is neither what he said, nor what he meant - and you know it.

The not-very-hidden message I read into what he was saying was 'things were better when I was running the show. What you all need is for me to come back again'. You may deplore even the thought of such a thing, but that isn't what you're accusing him of either saying or thinking.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.

That is neither what he said, nor what he meant - and you know it.

The not-very-hidden message I read into what he was saying was 'things were better when I was running the show. What you all need is for me to come back again'. You may deplore even the thought of such a thing, but that isn't what you're accusing him of either saying or thinking.

I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.

Blair was calling on people to vote for whomever could best oppose the present Tory government on Brexit. As opposed to Corbyn who is definitely going to bark at May's Brexit plans a lot tomorrow once he's finished rolling over and letting her tickle his tummy. It's bark tomorrow and bark yesterday but always roll over and tummy tickles today with Corbyn.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I like Corbyn's sense of priorities - Day 3 of an election campaign, he announces a policy to introduce 4 new public holidays, one for each of the patron saints.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I like Corbyn's sense of priorities - Day 3 of an election campaign, he announces a policy to introduce 4 new public holidays, one for each of the patron saints.

Yes, the Alastair Campbell message grid is clearly still in use, keeping all Labour campaigners firmly focussed on the most vital issues of our national life and helping them avoid getting sucked into pointless arguments over irrelevant trivia.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I like Corbyn's sense of priorities - Day 3 of an election campaign, he announces a policy to introduce 4 new public holidays, one for each of the patron saints.

In a time where the Union's been put under more and more stress by a government that doesn't care about the country, it's not irrational.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
More specifically, many Scots feel ignored by being "dragged by England", particularly given the way the promises of the referendum before were broken.

Northern Ireland is in a difficult situation also with the brexit vote, and realistically, a competent government is going to need to make a bespoke arrangement for it (and Gibraltor) (bets we don't get one) that meets with the approval of the country to the south and doesn't divide a barely mended divide.

The far right have claimed the flag of St George.
And we English always whine about the Scots getting their day off anyway (even if it is at the cost of another, we forget that). (More cynically the right media labled Ed's father as the man who hated Britain, and exploited comments in Kent to make labour seem anti St George)

Then there's Wales, who's flag is missed out already.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
You do realise of course that Hadrian's Wall is entirely within England?

It just suits purpose so perfectly. Call the extra bit interest on the loan of a country or penalties for the abuse of same.
quote:

Actually that sounds like a good idea.....hmmm......I wonder if Wales can get in on the act? I like Scotland

Terrific idea! Surround them and keep them in line.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?

No, you're quite right - I heard him say exactly that on BBC R4 this morning.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
More specifically, many Scots feel ignored by being "dragged by England", particularly given the way the promises of the referendum before were broken.

Northern Ireland is in a difficult situation also with the brexit vote, and realistically, a competent government is going to need to make a bespoke arrangement for it (and Gibraltor) (bets we don't get one) that meets with the approval of the country to the south and doesn't divide a barely mended divide.

The far right have claimed the flag of St George.
And we English always whine about the Scots getting their day off anyway (even if it is at the cost of another, we forget that). (More cynically the right media labled Ed's father as the man who hated Britain, and exploited comments in Kent to make labour seem anti St George)

Then there's Wales, who's flag is missed out already.

This seems to run counter to your preceding post.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
How?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I like Corbyn's sense of priorities - Day 3 of an election campaign, he announces a policy to introduce 4 new public holidays, one for each of the patron saints.

It's the best policy either side has announced so far. Right wing, left wing, capitalism, socialism, brexit, bremain - I have opinions about all of these. But offer me four extra days off work and by Jove I'll ignore them all [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
How?

Your earlier post talks of increasing divisions between the various constituents of the UK; this proposal gives greater emphasis to separate traditions.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Anyone want to lay bets on if we get 4 more bank holidays then we will also have our annual leave cut by 4 days?
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?

No, you're quite right - I heard him say exactly that on BBC R4 this morning.
Is that then blatantly encouraging someone to vote against an official Labour candidate?

I thought you could be expelled from the party for doing that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Are there [technically] any official candidates at present? Has anyone actually filed the appropropriate paper work to say they are standing for election in constituency x? If not then technically a call from Mr Blair to support someone opposed to Brexit is not a call to vote against an official Labour candidate. Which may be a technicality, but may be an important one - especially if his intent is to get the Labour party to field candidates opposed to Brexit.

The nature of a snap election is that there is very limited time to select candidates, so the chances of any party selecting someone other than the current MP/person who they put up last time is slim - except in cases where that person has said they don't want to stand. That time scale is even shorter for smaller parties who won't realistically be able to start that process until after the 4th May elections are over, since (quite reasonably) they'll be concentrating their limited resource on those elections. Which is another reason why the timing of this general election sucks - though it suits Mrs May because it makes sure it's in before she loses her Commons majority as Tory MPs get charged with election expense violations.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'd guess that legally there are no candidates until the acting returning officer publishes the list of those who have properly been registered in each constituency.

That said, Blair is sailing close to the wind on this. But then, once again, the only thing Blair is interested in is Blair.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
The registration deadline is 11th May for the general election. All major parties seem to have gone for sitting MPs being automatically selected unless they wish to stand down.

I would imagine that major parties will be able to rustle up candidates quite easily, as they've probably always got someone "on standby", particularly in target seats. For the ones they have on the "we'll never win" list, I guess it doesn't matter too much.

But with the polls the way they are, maybe that list is very different this time around.
 
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :
 
"Tony Blair" is an anagram of "Libya torn".
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd guess that legally there are no candidates until the acting returning officer publishes the list of those who have properly been registered in each constituency.

IIRC parties name someone as their provisional parliamentary candidate: amongst other things it avoids the problem that public servants have to resign their office before they can stand for parliament.

[ 24. April 2017, 11:24: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
"Tony Blair" is an anagram of "Libya torn".

Or, among others, "Tory in Lab" and (I like this) "Rainy Blot".
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
No-one can be sure of anything. There is no 'Right or Wrong' in Politics, - all there is are 'Opinions' on what might be a better course of events. I avoid any Politician who knows for certain what is 'Good or Bad'. Humility is absolutely essential for someone in Authority to avoid making catastrophic errors.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
No-one can be sure of anything. There is no 'Right or Wrong' in Politics, - all there is are 'Opinions' on what might be a better course of events. I avoid any Politician who knows for certain what is 'Good or Bad'. Humility is absolutely essential for someone in Authority to avoid making catastrophic errors.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Humility is in short supply. And catastrophic errors abound.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I can't imagine a politician who is truly humble. I know that some put on an act of humility, but it tends to be paper-thin. They polish their image, and lie out of their back teeth.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Probably a tangent for another thread, but is humility really compatible with such enormous responsibility? It might be in church settings, but in politics you have to climb the greasy pole in the first place, and if you do become PM have some pretty awe inspiring decisions to take.

You walk through the door of number ten and have to write a document explaining what the nuclear submarines have to do if they lose contact with Britain. There might be a war.

Is humility really to be expected? I think to get there, you'd have to have such monumental self belief and probably a pretty mean streak...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And probably cognitive dissonance?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Well, talking of who is standing for which party, The Green Party would like David Cameron to make a comeback
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Probably a tangent for another thread, but is humility really compatible with such enormous responsibility?

Yes, I think so. President Carter's name sort of leaps to mind in this context - and I think you can admire his humility without necessarily admiring either his policies or his presidency.

Whether it's also compatible with the demands of getting elected in the soundbite-driven 24-hour media cycle that makes up modern politics, I don't know.

But it's an interesting challenge - any kind of leadership position requires a fair amount of self-confidence: if you're not confident in your own abilities, why would anyone else be? But someone who is secure in his abilities doesn't have a problem admitting that someone else's idea is a better one.

People who blow their own trumpet generally don't have anyone else to blow it for them.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A very good point by Leorning Cniht. You can be humble while also being strong and authentic, and in fact, it's the weak-minded who tend to be shrill, and poor listeners.

I don't know enough about Carter, but it's hard to think of a British politician like this. People say that Attlee was, but I don't know. There are plenty of cynical ones, who are good at manipulating, e.g. Wilson.

As Ms West is supposed to have said, a hard man is good to find.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are plenty of cynical ones, who are good at manipulating, e.g. Wilson.

I might add Baldwin to the list - gave away something like 20% of his fortune to help pay off the WW1 war debt without telling anyone he'd done it - I can't imagine any of the current crop doing the equivalent now, and certainly not doing it without any publicity. He certainly manipulated his own image, a la Wilson, but he was decent with it - just finished Roy Jenkins' biography of him as it happens.

Maybe also Sir Alec Douglas Home, who just took the job on the basis of noblesse oblige.

Away from the leaders there are and have always been a good few more on the backbenches (on both sides) but even there one always gets the impression that the majority of backbenchers have a burning belief that they could do the top job.

Then there're those who get humility thrust upon them - John Profumo is the model for this - devoted decades post the titular scandal to quiet (and very effective) charity work. You could say this was an attempt to rebuild his reputation but even then he quietly got on with it all without publicity, so I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt there.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I might add Baldwin to the list - gave away something like 20% of his fortune to help pay off the WW1 war debt without telling anyone he'd done it

He was also one of the "Guilty Men", so...


quote:

Then there're those who get humility thrust upon them - John Profumo is the model for this - devoted decades post the titular scandal to quiet (and very effective) charity work. You could say this was an attempt to rebuild his reputation but even then he quietly got on with it all without publicity, so I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt there.

It isn't as clear as that, with charity and celebrity. Publicity for them equals publicity, and therefore donations, to the charity. But suspicion as to their motive. Prince has been lauded for his private support for charity, but how much more help would those charities have received if his devoted fans had known?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Then there're those who get humility thrust upon them - John Profumo is the model for this - devoted decades post the titular scandal to quiet (and very effective) charity work. You could say this was an attempt to rebuild his reputation ..

In which he succeeded to a degree. From the Davenport-Hines book on the era he seems to emerge chastened rather than particularly changed.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
I think that a little bit of Humility might have prevented the second Iraq War.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

Then there're those who get humility thrust upon them - John Profumo is the model for this - devoted decades post the titular scandal to quiet (and very effective) charity work. You could say this was an attempt to rebuild his reputation but even then he quietly got on with it all without publicity, so I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt there.

It isn't as clear as that, with charity and celebrity. Publicity for them equals publicity, and therefore donations, to the charity. But suspicion as to their motive. Prince has been lauded for his private support for charity, but how much more help would those charities have received if his devoted fans had known?
I'm quite prepared to have a good go at defending Baldwin, although I suspect this isn't the thread!

I agree with your point on celebrity/charity, but the point on Profumo (which is why mentioned him) was that he really does seem to have been on an atonement kick - working away quietly behind the scenes on unfashionable causes. His periodic appearances blinking into the limelight were more notable for the fact most people were surprised he was still alive
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
My Favourite Politician was Arthur Neville Chamberlain, a Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. He was the one who got Britain ready for a War he didn't want, and then declared War on Germany on 3rd September 1939. He then led the Country at War until he was too ill to carry on, and died shortly afterwards of Bowel Cancer. A Man of Peace, who because of his efforts, united the Country against Hitler.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
YouGov has just published a poll, showing the Tories 10 points ahead of Labour IN WALES. This would give them 10 former Labour seats, and an overall majority of seats in Wales. This is through-the-looking-glass politics.

Most Welsh polling data is based on subsets from UK-wide polls, and is therefore not very reliable. But this was specifically commissioned by ITV Wales.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has just published a poll, showing the Tories 10 points ahead of Labour IN WALES. This would give them 10 former Labour seats, and an overall majority of seats in Wales. This is through-the-looking-glass politics.

Most Welsh polling data is based on subsets from UK-wide polls, and is therefore not very reliable. But this was specifically commissioned by ITV Wales.

Labour certainly has an instinct for suicide. I feel sorry for the poor and the disabled, who are going to get shafted, well, shafted again.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
How?

Your earlier post talks of increasing divisions between the various constituents of the UK; this proposal gives greater emphasis to separate traditions.
That's why I think it's important that it's all 4 [Bank holidays] everywhere. It's celebrating all the parts together. A United Kingdom.

Is it (to consider Scotland) too little too late, probably, but it might give a terms grace and in that term something good could happen.

Will it counter the SNP narrative portraying Labour as enabling the Tories, probably not, but it might prevent it from being increased.

Will it counter the Tory narrative portraying Labour as enabling the SNP, probably not, but it might prevent it from being increased.

Will it be praised by the press, almost certainly (in 2 years time, in Teresa's campaign for a mandate to rejoin the EU, but you didn't ask about details).

[ 24. April 2017, 17:12: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
It would appear that all across the UK the Tories are getting back most of the voters they lost to UKIP, without losing too many Tory Remainers to the Lib Dems. Leave voters from Labour and Plaid Cymru are also contemplating the unthinkable.

I'm starting to wonder if there's still a "shy Tory" effect: I know of Brexit supporters who have never voted Tory before who will admit, when pressed, that they are thinking of doing just that. Whether they would say so to a pollster is another matter; it's entirely possible that Tory support is actually understated.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It would appear that all across the UK the Tories are getting back most of the voters they lost to UKIP, without losing too many Tory Remainers to the Lib Dems. Leave voters from Labour and Plaid Cymru are also contemplating the unthinkable.

I'm starting to wonder if there's still a "shy Tory" effect: I know of Brexit supporters who have never voted Tory before who will admit, when pressed, that they are thinking of doing just that. Whether they would say so to a pollster is another matter; it's entirely possible that Tory support is actually understated.

Well, Labour seem incoherent on Brexit, and just about everything else. Admittedly, the Tories are also incoherent, and have made more U-turns than an anaconda. However, this seems irrelevant, since politics isn't based on rational stuff today. Mrs May has a good image, even if it is a fraud.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?

No, you're quite right - I heard him say exactly that on BBC R4 this morning.
Is that then blatantly encouraging someone to vote against an official Labour candidate?

I thought you could be expelled from the party for doing that.

When pressed on whether he was suggesting people should vote against a Labour-Brexit candidate he said they should vote Labour. I'm sure he's aware he's giving conflicting advice.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Meanwhile Fallon has declared that we could do a first nuclear strike, because that attitudes worked so well for Kim
(actually to be fair it has, once locked in that position, but it's not as good as being in the South Korean position)

[ 24. April 2017, 20:58: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
For those who want extra depression, here is a website and blog with an involved discussion of polls. The consensus, even amongst Scottish Nationalist contributors is that the Tory surge in Scotland is here to stay: it represents a coalescing of Unionist support behind - well - the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. Even in places like Glasgow, Tory support is now upwards of 20% apparently, for the first time in 30 or 40 years. I am told this is partly due to the popularity of Ruth Davidson but also residual Orange support, which was only ever 'lent' to Labour.

The most recent Scottish poll(Panelbase) is SNP 44, C 33, Lab 13, LD 5). On a uniform swing, the SNP would remain dominant but the Tories would gain all the Border constituencies, half the Scottish north-east: 12 constituencies in all. They would also come from third, leapfrogging the SNP in the process, to take Edinburgh South and eliminate Labour representation in Scotland.

The Lib Dems would hang onto Orkney and Shetland, and would miss out on East Dunbartonshire by a squeak (actually I suspect they'll gain it as their candidate is said to be popular).

Just think. No Labour representation in Scotland. What a change from 1997. I am dismayed.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum? Is it all from UKIP voters switching to the Tories now that UKIP's raison d'etre is gone and Labour leave voters also switching to the Tories? Where are all the remain voters and the majority in polls who favor a soft Brexit? Are the Tory policies other than Brexit so popular among them? Do so many of them think giving May a stronger majority will result in a soft Brexit? Do they trust their local Tory MP to fight for a soft Brexit? It just seems odd to me as an outsider that there isn't more of a backlash against the Tories in the areas where the remain vote was high.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I think one has to look back to the 2015 election and compare it to the election before that to answer this question.

Compared to 2010, the Tories' vote remained static, the Labour vote declined, the Lib Dem vote collapsed, and UKIP's vote multiplied. The reason the Tories made gains is because of Lib Dem collapse in seats where the Tories [edited] came second in 2010.

In 2014 Yougov did a survey of UKIP support. Just under half had voted Tory in 2010. Ten percent hadn't voted. The remainder had voted Lib Dem, UKIP or Labour.

So, the following happened in 2015:

- The Tories lost votes to UKIP.
- Labour lost a similar number of votes to the Tories.
- Lib Dem support switched to Labour, stayed at home, or switched to UKIP.

All of which suggests that 2010 Tories who voted UKIP in 2015 are now returning to the Tories. In the meantime, Labour has not regained the support lost to the Tories in 2015.

None of this accounts for geographical spread, and it will be interesting to see how well Tory support holds up in London. However, Brexit may not have much effect. Most Labour voters voted Remain. Most Tories voted Leave. The Remain vote in the south of England mostly came from non-Tories.

[ 25. April 2017, 02:31: Message edited by: Cod ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

None of this accounts for geographical spread, and it will be interesting to see how well Tory support holds up in London. However, Brexit may not have much effect. Most Labour voters voted Remain. Most Tories voted Leave. The Remain vote in the south of England mostly came from non-Tories.

In addition and related. Labour seem to have ended up blamed by both sides of Brexit (as I was worried about at the time).
Partly because the tories are good at spin.
Partly because like all good lies, it's partially true.
Partly because the elements in labours internal arguments have been very blind to what they've been saying (more actively the anti-corbyn side [think of what Blairs just said, and how it will be heard by a Brexiter and a Remainer], more passively Corbyn).
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
But also, it seems, that there are swing voters who want to make sure Brexit actually happens.

There are some truly remarkable comments on this thread on UK Polling Report.

quote:
I’ll tell you the reality of how this is panning-out in the real world.

I am 60 years old. I am a member of Plaid Cymru and I go out campaigning for them etc etc and have been for the forth-coming council elections. I consider myself a traditional working class left-wing pro-welsh independence republican.

I have never, ever, in my entire life ever even considered voting Tory.

However, just this once I will be lending Theresa May my vote in June. BREXIT is far far bigger than party idealogies. We have gt to get on with it and we have got to be seen as having a strong pro-BREXIT government in power.

And I know I’m not the only one that’s doing likewise. I know Plaid and Labour councillors, Plaid members and Plaid and Labour voters that will, in the secrecy of the booth, be putting their cross against the tory candidate. I even know some Lib Dems that will be doing likewise.

Personally, I think the level of Tory support is understated.
Leanne Wood doesn’t seem to have any idea what’s going on in her pwn grass roots support and I would be very very surprised if Plaid increased it’s seats.

OK, it's the Internet, but I can't imagine anyone bothering to make such a comment before. It wouldn't even be half-convincing trolling.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Another snippet for polling anoraks.

This article discusses how 2010 Lib Dem voters intended to vote. The article is prior to the last GE, but it's probably accurate as the Lib Dems did end up with the vote share projected in that survey.

Labour: 26%
Lib Dems: 25%
Conservative: 8-9%
UKIP: 9 - 11%
Green: 5 - 8%
Not voting: 2%
Don't know: 21%

If the DKs are split proportionally on the basis of those expressing a preference, we have roughly one third indicating that they'd vote Lib Dem, which is exactly what happened at the 2015 election.

Interesting to note the proportion of votes heading to UKIP, who are the opposite of the Lib Dems on many issues.

My speculation is that those LD-to-UKIP voters have now headed across from UKIP to the Tories and won't be got back by the Lib Dems.

I also suspect that voters who switched from the Lib Dems to Labour in 2015 are sticking with Labour, however, their numbers aren't enough to offset the loss of support from Labour to the Tories.

It all emphasises what a huge shift to the right there was in England in 2015.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I've never really believed before that people would switch from Labour to Tory (or vice-versa) in significant numbers. The occasional chronically undecided or capricious type might do it. Large-scale movement between parties is usually in the form of "churn" - Tory to Liberal, Liberal to Labour, Labour to SNP/PC/Green.

This time around I know lifelong Labour voters, people who would previously have sent Tory canvassers away with some ripe invective, who are considering voting Tory. Not just because they want to "make sure of Brexit"; there are also those who can't stand Corbyn and don't want him in power under any circumstances (they have little to worry about!); Theresa May also seems very popular personally, for reasons unfathomable to me. There is a growing sense that there is only one horse in this race so you might as well back it.

The Tories' core vote is holding up well, they have hoovered up most of the UKIP vote, and they are gaining Leave voters from other parties. It's easy to see why May was suddenly persuaded of the merits of a snap election.

I think the only way Corbyn can stop the haemorrhage is by coming out strongly for Brexit, saying "I wanted it all along but the pesky plp tied my hands" It might be too late, smacking of desperation, but it would at least have the virtue of honesty. It would finally sever all links with the bulk of the Labour party, which may be what he wants. He needs a populist insurgency, but at the moment we seem to have an establishment insurgency.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
stonespring:
quote:
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
I think the short answer is 'because the Tories have the right-wing press on their side'. The most widely read newspapers are the Sun and the Daily Heil, both rabidly pro-Brexit. The slightly longer answer is 'because the Armageddon that the Remain campaign predicted hasn't happened yet' (well of course it hasn't: we're still in the EU at the moment, and when we leave the Brexiteers can blame any problems on EU sabotage or "Remoaners").

There are quite a lot of people out there still who don't use the Internet, and/or don't rely on it as a news source. Older people for the most part, who are also more likely to vote.

And the Labour Party is also backing Brexit, so if you don't your only choice (if you're not in Scotland) is to support the Lib Dems, who have not really recovered yet from the experience of acting as the emergency brake in the coalition government.

[ 25. April 2017, 08:40: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory. Madness.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:


The Tories' core vote is holding up well, they have hoovered up most of the UKIP vote, and they are gaining Leave voters from other parties.

Text book demonstration of much mythed Tory Loyalty in action - looks (at the moment, there's still plenty of time for all this to change) like if you're a Tory voter then that's more important than anything else, including your personal position on Brexit, so you'll be voting Tory.

At the same time:

- leavers in other parties are intending to vote Tory this time round to prop up Brexit

-unionists in Scotland are coalescing around the Tories because unionism is more important than Brexit and they want to kick the SNP

- God only knows what's happening in Wales although it looks like a straight transfer of leave voters to the Tories, combined with a verdict on the performance of Labour in the Welsh Assembly (no one ever said voters had to be rational)

- the pragmatic end of the Remain vote everywhere looks at the choices for PM and doesn't want Corbyn

- lots of people do seem to like Mrs May

*If* this is the way it goes in 6 weeks' time then, regardless of political affiliation, the Tories will in the short term have played a political blinder.

Personally, I think that they're storing up problems for themselves longer term, but then again I suppose they're also buying the time to head them off...
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
betjemaniac:
quote:
*If* this is the way it goes in 6 weeks' time then, regardless of political affiliation, the Tories will in the short term have played a political blinder.
And this is what those of us who don't support them find so annoying; it's all a game to them, and their only aim is to hold onto power for as long as possible. This is true of many politicians, but the current Conservative Party has taken it to new levels (or perhaps we should say depths).

[ 25. April 2017, 08:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:
quote:
*If* this is the way it goes in 6 weeks' time then, regardless of political affiliation, the Tories will in the short term have played a political blinder.
And this is what those of us who don't support them find so annoying; it's all a game to them, and their only aim is to hold onto power for as long as possible. This is true of many politicians, but the current Conservative Party has taken it to new levels (or perhaps we should say depths).
absolutely agree - but even as someone that's more sanguine about the Tories I do think they're storing up problems for themselves. Lets assume a massive majority for the purposes of what I'm about to say (I'm actually open to anything from a hung parliament to a majority of 200+ still at the moment):

- they'll win loads of seats in places that they shouldn't, some by quite tight margins; these will start to swing back post Brexit
- they'll conversely lose some seats which they shouldn't, where the Miller/Blair dinner party axis-of-Remain gets going on tactical voting - those might come back at subsequent elections but it will mean campaigning in 2022 gets very cock-eyed
- there will, even in the bluest of blue sky perfect Brexits still be *some* Brexit remorse once it has gone through. I'm agnostic about how much there will be because, as a fence sitter from last year, I'm agnostic about how good/bad it can be - as someone who works in a small business I can see both sunlit uplands and apocalypse round the corner, and everything in between. Nevertheless to some extent there will be a kicking coming for the Brexiteers in the future, and the Tories will now indisputably own it

so, in the short term they might be weighing rather than counting the national vote, longer term it could absolutely blow up in their faces.
On the plus side for Labour, if they're reduced to a rump then they'll probably escape the fallout in five years time of any bad Brexit.

That is, if they actually come up with someone electable next time round. If Jeremy stays on until he can get is leadership election changes through then, as Nick Cohen says in Sunday's Observer, there's no reason why we couldn't be exactly where we are now at the next election too...
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
If Jeremy stays on until he can get is leadership election changes through then, as Nick Cohen says in Sunday's Observer, there's no reason why we couldn't be exactly where we are now at the next election too...

Anyone who thinks Corbyn will step down just because of an electoral disaster hasn't got the measure of Corbyn. He will stay on as leader until he has firmly established a hard-left dynasty.

Now there are more electable figures than Corbyn on the left of the party, but yes I currently think it is more likely than not that we will be here again in five years' time.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I currently think it is more likely than not that we will be here again in five years' time.

As someone who has never voted Labour* but nevertheless believes in halfway decent oppositions to keep government honest you've no idea how much that depresses me.

*I have however voted for 3 other parties so I'm not overly partisan
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
stonespring:
quote:
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
I think the short answer is 'because the Tories have the right-wing press on their side'.
To be precise, 80% of the press in this country is owned by six aging white right-wing male oligarchs.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It is utter madness to vote Tory in Wales. Absolutely stupid.

I can understand dismay amongst Labour voters given the extremely bad deal that the Cardiff bay assembly works within, the continued grinding poverty experienced in many of the places where the majority of the population of Wales live, the near-collapse of the health system, the way that Labour seem to think that they own/deserve much of the political ground in Wales.

But I simply cannot understand how those things are mutated through a lens of Brexit anti-immigrant feeling (usually in places where there are few migrants) to support for the bloody Tories - who have absolutely nothing to offer Wales whatsoever. Talk about cutting off your foot to spite your face.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
stonespring:
quote:
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
I think the short answer is 'because the Tories have the right-wing press on their side'.
To be precise, 80% of the press in this country is owned by six aging white right-wing male oligarchs.
And how many people actually read those papers?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
support for the bloody Tories - who have absolutely nothing to offer Wales whatsoever. Talk about cutting off your foot to spite your face.

I appreciate that at best this will probably provoke gales of hollow laughter from you, but there is a small, rational, reason why *this* time it might work. And I say this because it's a small possibility, not because I endorse it or think it will happen.

*If* the Tories get a big majority, but at the expense of safe seats in Remain areas of the SE, then they might be forced to do more to hold onto such seats over the 5 years and into the next GE. Consequently, as a pragmatic outworking of "better to be inside the tent" mixed with good old fashioned pork barrel politics, Welsh and indeed (and perhaps especially) Scottish seats that go blue could expect to do quite well out of it, if only because of the bonkers times in which we're living.

On that basis, if the Tories end up with a vested interest in Potemkin villages in Scotland and Wales, then it might be worth living in one. And yes, I'm as appalled by the cynicism of that line as you will be, but I think it's a possibility.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
OTOH, the Tories' assertion that only they have "a clear plan for Brexit" has provided some welcome light relief.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
I am bored with the whole thing. We didn't need an Election. What do we pay MPs for if its not to sort out the nitty-gritty of the Detail. I don't need any Brexit Plan, - just sit down in the Room and get the best deal you can. Easy.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And how many people actually read those papers?

If you look at weekly readership figures rather than daily circulation figures, and include both print and online access, then about 12 million people read The Sun each week, and about 13 million read The Mail or The Mail on Sunday.

Additionally, because of the centralisation of the press in the UK, the print press tends to set the agenda for both private and public broadcast media.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Personally I think that very few people are actually committed to any given party (mostly those who actually join a party and get involved). A much larger number of people will habitually vote for just one party, but don't do so out of any strong conviction on the policies of that party - there are irrational reasons like "this is a Labour/Tory area, therefore I'll vote Labour/Tory" (delete as appropriate), there are semi-rational reasons that people expect particular parties to be on their side (former coal miners vote Labour, small business owners vote Tory etc) even though objective analysis of policies would significantly cloud the issues, many people will vote consistently for one party on the basis of a very few policy issues (Labour always does well campaigning on the NHS, Tories on low taxes).

What we're seeing at the moment is basically a major re-assessment of how people vote, creating a much larger pool of swing voters than normal. Part of that is that Brexit is a new factor that has never previously been a major plank of policy for any major party, and one that cuts across most parties (mostly because before last year none of the parties had any need to work through a defined policy on EU membership that the whole party could get behind). While Brexit is held out by the media (and, indeed by our PM) as the main policy question in this election people will actually be looking at what the different parties propose on that issue and that will strongly influence voting behaviour.

But, added to that I do think there is a growing awareness of the range of issues in politics, the one good thing to come out of the referendum campaign last year was that a lot of people who don't usually vote did so, a lot of people who don't normally engage in political discussion did so (even on the very limited data, much of it false, they had to discuss). And, the referendum campaign allowed people to vote on an issue without feeling obliged to simply support the party they habitually voted for. The referendum let the cat out of the bag - you don't need to always vote for the same party just because that's how you've always voted, and that cat isn't going back in the bag (and, a good thing it is too IMO).

The biggest problem with this new-found flexibility in voting is that there is still a strong impression that we're effectively a two-party system. So, habitual Labour voters re-assessing their views are quite likely to overlook the other parties and only see the choice between Labour and Tory (except in Scotland where the SNP have managed to blow the two-party paradigm out of the water). For the smaller parties (primarily the LibDem to an extent, Greens, PC in Wales) to gain significantly from this larger pool of swing voters what they really need to do is to manage to overturn the two-party paradigm, which will involve a lot more than putting forward good candidates and policies. For a start they have the mass media to combat, who are among the strongest proponents of the two-party paradigm, and also the Tories and Labour (both of whom benefit from the two-party paradigm), and all others portraying a vote for anyone else as "wasted".
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Who takes notice of what they read in any Newspaper ? They all have their own Agendas. I often have letters published in several of them. But everyone has to be written differently to be selected, even if they contain the same basic message.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
My take on Stonespring's questions FWIW. Big overall observation is, again, Stonespring, that it's not all about Brexit. Brexit is an elephant in the room - the others are Scottish Nationalism and Jeremy Corbyn.


quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?

Because Leavers are coalescing around the Tories regardless of normal party, and most Tories would rather face electrodes than vote for anyone other than the Tories even when the party is not only not giving them what they want but explicitly not giving them what they want.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is it all from UKIP voters switching to the Tories now that UKIP's raison d'etre is gone and Labour leave voters also switching to the Tories?

Yes to both of those movements, also switchers to the Tories from all parties (inc Labour) because of Jeremy.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Where are all the remain voters and the majority in polls who favor a soft Brexit? Are the Tory policies other than Brexit so popular among them?

This bit is the tricky one - people for whom fighting Brexit is the only thing are presumably reflected in the 12% of people intending (currently) to vote LibDem - from which we can deduce that, rightly or wrongly, there aren't many people for whom Brexit is the be all and end all. Bound up in that is the constituency of voters that we could call "against-Brexit-with-every-fibre-of-my-being-but-oh-dear-God-not-Corbyn" who however miserably will either not vote, or hold their nose and vote for someone who isn't going to give them what they want on Brexit.

In Scotland polling seems (with the usual caveat on polling) to indicate that people who don't want Scottish independence (narrow majority) see this as more important than Brexit, and are coalescing around the Tories as guarantor of Unionism. If Scottish Unionist remainers give the Tories counter-intuitively say 8 seats north of the border then that starts to cancel out the LibDems taking pro-Remain southern seats (assuming that the LibDems surge to no more than 25 seats overall from their current 9.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Do so many of them think giving May a stronger majority will result in a soft Brexit?

I'm sure some will think that - personally part of me thinks that way - but that's a different thing to it happening. At this stage I think people are split between rolling the dice in that hope and, what I think hasn't been reflected in the US press but can't be underestimated, as a Remainer last year myself, quite a large constituency of "voted Remain but please just get on with it now."

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Do they trust their local Tory MP to fight for a soft Brexit?

I'd have thought almost certainly not, but acquiescing in "just get on with it" as above. I think Mrs May was in the realms of hubris with "the country has come together" bit last week, but I do think that she was groping towards reflecting the fact that the division is there, but many have moved on into sullen making the best of it.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It just seems odd to me as an outsider that there isn't more of a backlash against the Tories in the areas where the remain vote was high.

There will be, but the people lashing back are probably overall in a minority vs the "make the best of it" and "stop Labour" tickets.

I say all of this of course, in the sure and certain knowledge that we'll be waking up to a Lib Dem government on 9th June!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
*If* the Tories get a big majority, but at the expense of safe seats in Remain areas of the SE, then they might be forced to do more to hold onto such seats over the 5 years and into the next GE.

This scenario only applies in the case where they also "win loads of seats in places that they shouldn't, some by quite tight margins". In fact, these are likely to be the same sets of seats - so are you saying 'they will win seats they normally wouldn't' or 'they will win seats I think they shouldn't' ?

There is a certain part of the press that has run with the argument that a larger majority will make for a softer Brexit, but I don't necessarily see why this will be so - it certainly won't have a bearing on the EUs calculus, and a larger majority could also simply mean that the more hardline (who are as likely come to power as a result of Leavers switching to Tory) are even more likely to make mischief.

Given that that's an empty argument, and that Labour are unlikely to win a majority, tactical voting to give the Tories as small a majority as possible seems to me to be a reasonable option - though it remains to be seen how many other people feel the same way.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
so are you saying 'they will win seats they normally wouldn't' or 'they will win seats I think they shouldn't' ?


Honestly? Probably both.

They're going to lose some seats; they're going to win some seats that they're targeting; they're going, a la the SNP in 2015, to "accidentally" win some seats far beyond their expectations and in which they've only stood paper candidates - most probably because of eg a catastrophic collapse/migration to the Tories of the Labour and UKIP vote in a few seats.

In those circumstances the choice is whether to continue to regard them as accidental wins, or try and hold them on the basis of appealing to people (and communities) that have never hitherto been seen as the Tories' bailiwick.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory

Well perhaps, but surely you can understand why so few people want to vote Labour. When Tony Blair won his landslide victory in 1997, he did so with a million fewer votes than John Major secured in his modest 1992 victory. Labour did so well because the Tory vote collapsed. If Mrs May secures a large victory this time it will be for the same reason. She may pick up a few votes from people returning from UKIP. She could conceivably pick up votes and seats in Scotland from dedicated Unionists. But it will be Labour's blowout that will give her a big lead.

Jeremy Corbyn may be the darling of his party activists, but to the rest of us he's an unelectable buffoon. I saw him on Andrew Marr on Sunday. He didn't seem to know that his party is putting renewal of Trident in its manifesto. He says the policy is still to be decided. He said nothing intelligible on Brexit to distinguish him from Theresa May's position. Nobody with half a brain could trust him on national security. Probably he still has more trust on the NHS than the government, but it isn't going to be enough of a fig leaf to cover his nakedness. I only hope that Labour learns its lesson from this.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory

Well perhaps, but surely you can understand why so few people want to vote Labour. When Tony Blair won his landslide victory in 1997, he did so with a million fewer votes than John Major secured in his modest 1992 victory.
While Major's 1992 victory was modest in terms of seats won, the Conservatives received the largest number of votes ever for a political party in a UK general election. That record remains unbroken (for now...)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is utter madness to vote Tory

This is all you needed to say. Unfortunately, it is not the way people think.
IMO, people who hate Tory will vote Tory because of Brexit.
There will be those who think a unified front, no matter how poor the actual plan, is the strongest position.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory

Well perhaps, but surely you can understand why so few people want to vote Labour. When Tony Blair won his landslide victory in 1997, he did so with a million fewer votes than John Major secured in his modest 1992 victory. Labour did so well because the Tory vote collapsed. If Mrs May secures a large victory this time it will be for the same reason.
In 2015 3.8 million people voted UKIP. Add that to the 11.3 million who voted Tory and you have 15.1 million Tory votes, eclipsing the 14.0 million who voted Tory in 1992.

That would be a phenominal result by UK standards. It's probably better to say that a Tory landslide in 1992 was prevented by the strong Labour turnout.

As an aside, I did one of those online "which party should you vote for" surveys and was surprised to note that the Lib Dems were the party whose policies people mostly agreed with. All of which goes to show how important trust is. The Tories, despite having disagreeable policies, are more trusted than Labour and far more than the Lib Dems to know what's best. It's a short step from this to say that the Tories are trusted to know what's best on Europe.

The big breakthrough for the SNP is that Scots changed from simply agreeing with them to trusting them.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Fantastic news! We can all relax now because two great bodies have decided to endorse Jeremy Corbyn and are exhorting their members to vote for JC and Labour. Yes, the Communist Party of Britain and the Trades Unionist & Socialist Party are both putting their weight behind Jezza so victory is assured for Labour and the bearded one from Islington.

In other news, JC may well be dragged into the nastiness that is ongoing at the disciplinary panel of the Law Society, currently holding a hearing against Leigh Day for suppressing evidence prejudicial to the then ongoing Al Suweady enquiry.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally I think that very few people are actually committed to any given party

I never have and never will have any allegiance to a political party. Every election has different issues with different politicians offering different solutions. I don't understand how anyone can say "I'm Labour like my dad and grandad before me." Or say, "I've voted Tory all my life and I won't change." Since I first voted in 1974, I've voted Labour, Conservative and once Liberal(before the Dems were added on). My happiest vote was for Tony Blair in 1997. I voted Tory in 1983 to go against Michael Foot's vision of Labour, and this is why I intend to vote for Mrs May this time around. To destroy Labour in the hope that it will again rise from the ashes. If I'm still alive next time around I will again weigh up where we are and what we're voting for.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Just to add, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Shami Chakrabati to whitewash an enquiry into anti-Semitism within the party and rewarded her with a peerage for giving him the answer he wanted. In the meanwhile Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the party for a year but allowed to remain a member. I give my absolute assurance that I will never vote Labour while Ken Livingstone is a member of the party.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
1. Aside from Brexit, Scottish Independence, and people's opinion of Jeremy Corbyn - what other issues are likely to motivate voters in this election? In a magical world where Brexit might not ruin things economically when it actually happens, would voters on average be pleased with Tory management of the economy under May? How do people feel about the state of the NHS, education, welfare, taxes, defense and foreign policy, and anything else you can think of? Especially, how might a working-class Leave voter who would have traditionally voted Labour or a middle-class-to-wealthy Remain voter who would traditionally have voted Tory feel about these other issues as they currently stand?

2. If there were more time before the election to organize (or if Labour loses the election but Corbyn manages to remain leader), might we see MPs defect to a new party like the SDP? Is it possible some Remain Tories and Wet/Red Tory MPs might be persuaded to join? Or might we see such MPs (Labour and Tory) defect to the Lib Dems?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is utter madness to vote Tory

This is all you needed to say. Unfortunately, it is not the way people think.
IMO, people who hate Tory will vote Tory because of Brexit.
There will be those who think a unified front, no matter how poor the actual plan, is the strongest position.

I just see Tory policies as cruel. Now we have talk of children turning up to school hungry, and teachers giving them food. WTF?

I prefer Corbyn's dithering to this.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
1. Aside from Brexit, Scottish Independence, and people's opinion of Jeremy Corbyn - what other issues are likely to motivate voters in this election?

Apart from the roads, aquaducts.... All the usual ones that motivate electors in any election. This is a typical general election onto which has been grafted Brexit, independence and Corbyn. For once consitutional questions, depressingly, are going to count as much as the bread and butter stuff.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In a magical world where Brexit might not ruin things economically when it actually happens, would voters on average be pleased with Tory management of the economy under May?

In that magical world, yes - on those terms why on earth wouldn't they? The point is more that at the moment the Tories are ahead on management of the economy over Labour in polling even with a disaster priced in, so frankly it doesn't matter - Corbyn has tainted the water.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do people feel about the state of the NHS, education, welfare, taxes, defense and foreign policy, and anything else you can think of?

See above, one poll over the weekend even had the Tories more trusted on the NHS than Labour - the NHS FFS. Labour's well has been utterly poisoned to the extent that people might not like what they're getting from the Conservatives, but think it would be worse under anyone else. Now we all know on here how very far from the reality that is but that doesn't matter as we're not the whole electorate.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Especially, how might a working-class Leave voter who would have traditionally voted Labour or a middle-class-to-wealthy Remain voter who would traditionally have voted Tory feel about these other issues as they currently stand?

The Tories are happy enough - and Tories will vote Tory as I said in an earlier post even when they don't feel represented by the Tories.

My prediction - Tory remainers will, by and large, vote Tory anyway come June 8th (as things stand, absent seismic changes).

If you're working class Labour leave then you probably think Corbyn's a waste of space and want to leave the EU so you're going to vote Tory - you may as well get at least *something* that you want...

My prediction, Labour Leavers are going to stay at home or vote Tory.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. If there were more time before the election to organize (or if Labour loses the election but Corbyn manages to remain leader), might we see MPs defect to a new party like the SDP? Is it possible some Remain Tories and Wet/Red Tory MPs might be persuaded to join? Or might we see such MPs (Labour and Tory) defect to the Lib Dems?

Without changing the voting system new parties tend to get crucified at UK elections. You can break through eventually - both Labour and the SNP prove that - but no one's ever done it over night. Best guess? It would indeed be the SDP all over again; they'd get many people go over to them, achieve nothing at the subsequent election as everyone continues to vote red or blue,
implode, and end up merging with the LibDems.

Incidentally, red/wet Tory MPs spent most of yesterday jumping from the cross-party Remain groups that they were members of because, when it came down to it, party was more important. Which kind of backs up what I've been saying.

More likely IMO is some post election jumping from the Labour right, but they're best viewed as CofE evangelicals - for a long time the Labour party's been the best boat to fish from for them and most will probably stay and keep fighting the internal enemy.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.

That was yesterday - in the last hour or so he's just been asked about why they've got selected David Ward* standing for the party in Bradford and he suggested that it's not the leader's job to say whether someone's right to be a candidate or not.

FFS. And they're supposed to be the answer...

*and it's not like David Ward is some random off the streets - Tim Farron, and everyone else in the party, should know exactly who he is and why this would be a PR disaster.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.

That was yesterday - in the last hour or so he's just been asked about why they've got selected David Ward* standing for the party in Bradford and he suggested that it's not the leader's job to say whether someone's right to be a candidate or not.

FFS. And they're supposed to be the answer...

*and it's not like David Ward is some random off the streets - Tim Farron, and everyone else in the party, should know exactly who he is and why this would be a PR disaster.

They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.

There's a certain selection effect at work here. The media could also ask the same questions of 'vicars daughter' May - she has an equally chequered voting record on SSM and Gay rights.

[ 26. April 2017, 10:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.

The problem with the LibDems is, and I say this from direct first hand experience, they might have got lots of cash now and tens of thousands of new members, but their organisational capacity and party mindset (particularly with regard to distributed democracy) could be bested by the average parish council.

A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...

[ 26. April 2017, 10:56: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.

There's a certain selection effect at work here. The media could also ask the same questions of 'vicars daughter' May - she has an equally chequered voting record on SSM and Gay rights.
TM seems to have become decidedly more liberal on the issue in recent years

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=826

So based on on recent voting record she would probably say she was pro-Gay Rights.

She was absent for a lot of votes though. And unlike Tim Farron, she isnt thought of in the Media as an Evangelical, with all the baggage that comes with.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Oxfam says 'Give a man a Fish and you will feed him for a Day, give him a Fishing Rod and you provide food for a Lifetime.' That applies to this Country as well. I vote for the Party that offers the best chance of creating meaningful employment (And that doesn't mean in the Arms Trade or Tobacco). A Job not gives money but self-respect. So my heroes are the Quakers like Rowntree, Cadbury and Huntley and Palmer.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.

The problem with the LibDems is, and I say this from direct first hand experience, they might have got lots of cash now and tens of thousands of new members, but their organisational capacity and party mindset (particularly with regard to distributed democracy) could be bested by the average parish council.

A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...

Ward has just been sacked. So that's a point in their favour, after all.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.

The problem with the LibDems is, and I say this from direct first hand experience, they might have got lots of cash now and tens of thousands of new members, but their organisational capacity and party mindset (particularly with regard to distributed democracy) could be bested by the average parish council.

A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...

Ward has just been sacked. So that's a point in their favour, after all.
True, but only after Farron was attacked over it at PMQs. It was inevitable that Ward would have to go, but it should have been inevitable that he wouldn't have been selected in the first place.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In a magical world where Brexit might not ruin things economically when it actually happens, would voters on average be pleased with Tory management of the economy under May?

In that magical world, yes - on those terms why on earth wouldn't they? The point is more that at the moment the Tories are ahead on management of the economy over Labour in polling even with a disaster priced in, so frankly it doesn't matter - Corbyn has tainted the water.
I blame Miliband, if not Brown and Darling. They should have come out fighting on the 'not our fault' line. But the Tory management of the economy - the recovery that isn't - should really be an open goal. It's probably too late to shift the narrative now.
Not that Corbyn is showing any signs of trying to shift the narrative.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

I blame Miliband, if not Brown and Darling. They should have come out fighting on the 'not our fault' line. But the Tory management of the economy - the recovery that isn't - should really be an open goal. It's probably too late to shift the narrative now

Absolutely they should have fought much harder, though it was an uphill battle against the idea in the media that the country was like a household that was living beyond it's means.

And yes - wages are down in the last 10 years, productivity is flat, the deficit has been growing. The economy hasn't gone anywhere for a very long time - May said as much in todays PMQs
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Sorry Gordon Brown ruined the Economy. His famous quote 'I have abolished Boom and Bust' showed huge arrogance, and then when the iceberg struck (Banking Crisis) there was nothing he could do.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

I blame Miliband, if not Brown and Darling. They should have come out fighting on the 'not our fault' line. But the Tory management of the economy - the recovery that isn't - should really be an open goal. It's probably too late to shift the narrative now

Absolutely they should have fought much harder, though it was an uphill battle against the idea in the media that the country was like a household that was living beyond it's means.

And yes - wages are down in the last 10 years, productivity is flat, the deficit has been growing. The economy hasn't gone anywhere for a very long time - May said as much in todays PMQs

Yes, Labour have been supine, in allowing the narrative to be determined by others. It happened with austerity, and now it's happening with Brexit.

But I do wonder if after big figures such as Thatcher and Blair, there is a tendency in parties towards depression and a kind of manic inactivity. It reminds me of divorce! Recovery time varies, but maybe 10 years? In Labour's case, maybe 15.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Sorry Gordon Brown ruined the Economy. His famous quote 'I have abolished Boom and Bust' showed huge arrogance, and then when the iceberg struck (Banking Crisis) there was nothing he could do.

I get sick of this myth being repeated as if it were fact. Ruined the economy how, exactly? by spending money on all those frivolous schools and hospitals?

It was the banks that ruined the economy by lending immense amounts of money to people who couldn't pay it back. When the crash came, I don't think nationalising the failed banks so that the cash machines would still work the following morning counts as "doing nothing". There is a case to be made that he should have done nothing and let it all burn, but we were 12 hours from nobody being paid or being able to buy food. And he refused to take the fetid corpse of Lehman Bros off the Americans' hands.

[ 26. April 2017, 16:25: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Sorry Gordon Brown ruined the Economy. His famous quote 'I have abolished Boom and Bust' showed huge arrogance, and then when the iceberg struck (Banking Crisis) there was nothing he could do.

Except that he could and did do. Labour, after the crash, stimulated the economy and got it going again until the tories smothered the recovery under a blanket of foolish austerity.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Oxfam says 'Give a man a Fish and you will feed him for a Day, give him a Fishing Rod and you provide food for a Lifetime.' That applies to this Country as well. I vote for the Party that offers the best chance of creating meaningful employment (And that doesn't mean in the Arms Trade or Tobacco). A Job not gives money but self-respect. So my heroes are the Quakers like Rowntree, Cadbury and Huntley and Palmer.

Yebbut. They're not standing in the election. They're all dead. And Cadburys was bought out and one of their biggest factories was eventually exported to Poland.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Sorry Gordon Brown ruined the Economy. His famous quote 'I have abolished Boom and Bust' showed huge arrogance, and then when the iceberg struck (Banking Crisis) there was nothing he could do.

Well, that's utterly and completely wrong.
The Banking Crisis hit most economies in the western world. It would have been worse if Brown hadn't led the way in putting together a rescue package for the banks. Frankly, when Brown said in a slip of the tongue that he'd saved the world instead of saying that he'd saved the banks, he was nearly right. Brown was decisive when Bush's US was dithering.
Darling and Brown had just begun to coax the country back into recovery. Then the Tories won and Osborne trampled the green shoots and didn't water them. And the result has been seven largely wasted years.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
A comment on whether London's Remain vote is likely to have an effect on voting there. I mentioned on the previous page that it would be interesting to see how well Tory support held up in London, given its overwhelming Remain vote.

The latest poll of GB by Panelbase has the following totals (2015 result in brackets)

C: 49% (37)
Lab: 27% (30)
LD: 10% (8)
UKIP: 5% (13)
SNP: 4% (5)
Green: 3% (4)

All of which suggests UKIP support, and some Labour support, transferring to the Conservatives.

In London the picture is more complicated (I note the sample size is small):

C: 43% (35)
Lab: 28% (44)
LD: 20% (8)
Green: 7% (5)
UKIP: 1% (8)

So we see not so much a reduction as a collapse in the UKIP vote (although from a low level - there being proportionally fewer grumpy white people in London to vote for them).

However, we also see a doubling of the Lib Dem vote, basically back to 2010 levels. Presumably this comes from Labour, whose support shows an appalling drop.

Lib Dem support in London tends to be concentrated in London's south west. This is relatively wealthy, higly eductated and particularly pro-Remain area, and so one might expect the Lib Dems to regain those seats from the Tories now holding them (Richmond Park was regained recently). However, the Tory surge might enable them to hold the Lib Dems off, depending on how successfully the latter can squeeze the Labour and Green vote.

Ironically, the sole LD London MP actually represents one of the few Leave area (Sutton: 53 to 46).
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Terrible for Labour that even London is deserting them. The Lib Dem revival is unlikely to translate into many seats for them there, more likely it will just split the non-Tory vote and gift Mrs May even more MPs for her overcrowded benches.

Time was when even in a bad election, Labour could bank on Scotland, Wales, Inner London and the Northern cities. Now it's the Northern cities...maybe?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
I'm trying to figure out why the other side of the Brexit negotiations will care if the side who is negotiating with them has more MP's.

Its not like Europe really needs to care about the English people anymore.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Coming from a country (the US) with a presidential system and with constitutionally fixed legislative terms and even a constitutionally fixed election day, I often envy the ability of most parliamentary systems in the world to have an election whenever government ceases to function or whenever a majority in the legislature desire it (although in the UK the Fixed Term Parliaments Act makes it a 2/3 majority).

However, it seems unfair, especially now that it is apparent that opposition parties are unlikely to oppose giving a 2/3 majority to allow for a snap election in most cases, that the Prime Minister can (just like in any other parliamentary system that allows for snap elections) choose at any time when an election will be, taking advantage of circumstances that have generated a swell in her/his party's poll numbers. Of course, there have been times when calling a snap election has backfired on a PM, but the ability to call one still gives a huge advantage to the incumbent party.

I think that in some countries snap elections can only be called by an actual vote of no confidence - meaning in practice that barring exceptional circumstances they can only be triggered by the opposition assuming that the opposition can round up enough support to pass a motion of no confidence. Is this fairer? I think there have been cases where PMs have gotten around this by asking for a vote of no confidence themselves - are there countries where even this is not allowed (where only MPs outside the PMs party/coalition can initiate a motion of no confidence)?

Another provision that might make snap elections seem less unfair would be one that would require a longer time for opposition parties to prepare for the election - I would think six months. To allow for quick elections in an emergency, this requirement could be overcome by an actual vote of no confidence (if the country allows for snap elections without a vote of no confidence), or by a supermajority of some kind (Picture this: The PM wants a snap election but the system is framed such that a 2/3 or even 3/4 majority is needed to have a snap election in less than 6 months). Would this be fairer? Would it be practical?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

However, it seems unfair, especially now that it is apparent that opposition parties are unlikely to oppose giving a 2/3 majority to allow for a snap election in most cases,

That's a mighty strong extrapolation from one data point.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

However, it seems unfair, especially now that it is apparent that opposition parties are unlikely to oppose giving a 2/3 majority to allow for a snap election in most cases,

That's a mighty strong extrapolation from one data point.
Probably a fair one though - it's hard to see how any opposition could pass up the opportunity to rid the country of a government it thinks is doing a bad job if they claim to want to replace them.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
I think the take away from this for opposition parties in the future, is this - especially if the Tories win big - don't vote in line with a Government when they try to do this. It is totally cynical and opportunistic and Governments will only do it when they are really confident they will win.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to figure out why the other side of the Brexit negotiations will care if the side who is negotiating with them has more MP's.

They won't. The "strong negotiating position" talk of the Tories is smoke and mirrors, part of the political game. Calling an election now (or, more specifically increasing the Tory majority by doing so) creates an appearance of a stronger position, but it only plays to the UK electorate and the Tory Party itself - it's not something of relevance to the EU side of the negotiations.

That appearance of a stronger hand comes through several facets. The most important ISTM is that it gets an election in before a string of by-elections in marginal seats due to Tory MPs forced to stand down due to election expense fraud - by-elections the Tories would struggle to win (what electorate finding the party they voted for last time fraudulently overspent on the election is going to look favourably on another candidate from the same party?). It would be an incredible embarrassment to the Tories to find themselves without a majority in the Commons half way through the 5 year term, even more so when that puts a question mark over the majority David Cameron used to call the Brexit referendum that has put the country in the mess it's in now. An election now papers over that crack and avoids making the dubiousness of the referendum even more apparent.

Added to that is, of course, the fact that the UK electorate as a whole were presented a confusing range of promises for Brexit, many of which were mutually exclusive, and have never had an opportunity to have a say on the form of Brexit. By billing the election as that chance for the UK electorate to say "we trust the Tories to negotiate on our behalf" they gain a semblance of a mandate for their scheme. But, the mandate they'll have will be no stronger or weaker than they had before calling the referendum.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to figure out why the other side of the Brexit negotiations will care if the side who is negotiating with them has more MP's.

They won't. The "strong negotiating position" talk of the Tories is smoke and mirrors, part of the political game. Calling an election now (or, more specifically increasing the Tory majority by doing so) creates an appearance of a stronger position, but it only plays to the UK electorate and the Tory Party itself - it's not something of relevance to the EU side of the negotiations.

That appearance of a stronger hand comes through several facets. The most important ISTM is that it gets an election in before a string of by-elections in marginal seats due to Tory MPs forced to stand down due to election expense fraud - by-elections the Tories would struggle to win (what electorate finding the party they voted for last time fraudulently overspent on the election is going to look favourably on another candidate from the same party?). It would be an incredible embarrassment to the Tories to find themselves without a majority in the Commons half way through the 5 year term, even more so when that puts a question mark over the majority David Cameron used to call the Brexit referendum that has put the country in the mess it's in now. An election now papers over that crack and avoids making the dubiousness of the referendum even more apparent.

Added to that is, of course, the fact that the UK electorate as a whole were presented a confusing range of promises for Brexit, many of which were mutually exclusive, and have never had an opportunity to have a say on the form of Brexit. By billing the election as that chance for the UK electorate to say "we trust the Tories to negotiate on our behalf" they gain a semblance of a mandate for their scheme. But, the mandate they'll have will be no stronger or weaker than they had before calling the referendum.

Although, funnily enough, the Today Programme has reported in the last hour that the mood music from Brussels is that they're actually quite happy with the idea of more Tory MPs and a stronger majority for TM as they think it will make negotiations, and indeed compromise, easier. They have apparently become much more optimistic about everything since last week's announcement.

Now, we could take the view that the Today Programme is an arm of government propaganda and you'd expect the BBC to help the govt out at this time by saying that. Obviously the fact that they moved quickly on to a crucifying interview with the Foreign Secretary was merely cover...
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The most important ISTM is that it gets an election in before a string of by-elections in marginal seats due to Tory MPs forced to stand down due to election expense fraud

Gently Alan, I think you might be missing a few "allegedlies", and awaiting a few decisions from the CPS - the police pass files to the CPS because they have to on completion of their investigations, it's the CPS' decision on whether a crime has been committed that stands more than I think it's 65% chance of getting a successful prosecution.

While we're drawing inferences, the lack of comment on this subject from Labour and the Liberal Democrats calls to mind the famous speech of the Very Reverend John da Costa in Salisbury/Harare Cathedral in 1978

"one listens for loud condemnation....one listens and the silence is deafening"

wonder why?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
the Today Programme has reported in the last hour that the mood music from Brussels is that they're actually quite happy with the idea of more Tory MPs and a stronger majority for TM as they think it will make negotiations, and indeed compromise, easier. They have apparently become much more optimistic about everything since last week's announcement.

If the election results in a bigger Tory majority, and therefore Mrs May is not having to keep one eye on her backbench then things probably become easier in negotiations. The EU won't have to be faced with so many mutually contradictory demands coming from the back-seat drivers in the Commons. I don't think it makes the UK government position any stronger or weaker, it might reduce the workload to reach a deal - which is more than enough to make the EU negotiators welcome it. Who wants things to be harder than they need be?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The most important ISTM is that it gets an election in before a string of by-elections in marginal seats due to Tory MPs forced to stand down due to election expense fraud

Gently Alan, I think you might be missing a few "allegedlies"
Yes, you are right. The particular MPs in question are innocent, until they've been brought to court and found guilty assuming the evidence is strong enough.

However, the Tories have already paid a record fine over 2015 election expenses. And, it is certainly possible that there is more to come.

quote:
"one listens for loud condemnation....one listens and the silence is deafening"

wonder why?

Of course there is no one with clean hands. All the parties have overspent and misreported expenses during recent elections. And, they all need to clean up their act. So, none of them can stand on the moral high ground - that doesn't mean that the electorate and the media shouldn't be hounding all of them over the issue.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think the take away from this for opposition parties in the future, is this - especially if the Tories win big - don't vote in line with a Government when they try to do this. It is totally cynical and opportunistic and Governments will only do it when they are really confident they will win.

I agree - but in this case we have an opposition leader who was desperate for an election for his own reasons. He is absolutely convinced that as soon as he gets out on the campaign trail and puts his socialist beliefs before the public, unmediated by the hostile press, the British people will flock to his banner. He thinks it'll be like his leadership campaign, with halls full of adoring supporters carrying him to overwhelming victory.

He also needs to do this before the Labour party implodes or he loses his grip on what's left of it, so the timing of this election actually suits him very well.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

They won't. The "strong negotiating position" talk of the Tories is smoke and mirrors, part of the political game ... it's not something of relevance to the EU side of the negotiations.

and at least one EU official has come out and explicitly said this:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/22/dont-believe-theresa-may-election-wont-change-brexit

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

While we're drawing inferences, the lack of comment on this subject from Labour and the Liberal Democrats

Until charges are brought at the same scale against other parties this dwells in the realm of the tu quoque. The specifics of the allegations involve central party organisations, so it's possible that this was systemic in a way that doesn't apply to the other parties (who may well have overspent on particular races).
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to figure out why the other side of the Brexit negotiations will care if the side who is negotiating with them has more MP's.

The official thinking on the Tory side is that if they have lots of MPs then they'll be able to ram through even a bad deal without parliamentary opposition. So the EU won't be tempted to offer a bad deal in order to have parliament refuse Brexit altogether. On the other hand: a) parliament has so far refused to grant itself any power to scrutinise the final deal; b) this sort of attitude towards your negotiating partners - that they've going to negotiate in bad faith - is likely to sour negotiations before they've started.

One hopes that May's thinking is more that if she has a large enough majority she can get a softer deal through parliament without having to worry about hardline backbenchers. This might however backfire if the election brings in additional hardline backbenchers. Also what signs there are from May are that she's happy with a hard deal.

The real reason is almost certainly that she thinks she can wipe out Labour.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think the take away from this for opposition parties in the future, is this - especially if the Tories win big - don't vote in line with a Government when they try to do this. It is totally cynical and opportunistic and Governments will only do it when they are really confident they will win.

I agree - but in this case we have an opposition leader who was desperate for an election for his own reasons. He is absolutely convinced that as soon as he gets out on the campaign trail and puts his socialist beliefs before the public, unmediated by the hostile press, the British people will flock to his banner. He thinks it'll be like his leadership campaign, with halls full of adoring supporters carrying him to overwhelming victory.

He also needs to do this before the Labour party implodes or he loses his grip on what's left of it, so the timing of this election actually suits him very well.

Do you really think this is true? I mean, the bit about Corbyn relishing the campaign. You may be right, but I wonder if there is an icy splinter of panic in him as well, in the face of impending Gotterdammerung, sorry about the missing umlauts.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do you really think this is true? I mean, the bit about Corbyn relishing the campaign. You may be right, but I wonder if there is an icy splinter of panic in him as well, in the face of impending Gotterdammerung, sorry about the missing umlauts.

I certainly think that Corbyn enjoys campaigning more than any other part of his job, and he must have an unshakeable belief in full-blooded socialism to have carried a torch for it throughout the Thatcher/Blair years. I don't think he's panicked so much as exasperated that people don't get it; as I've said before, if he doesn't succeed this time he will try again next time around, or arrange for an anointed successor to do so. He won't let a little thing like a landslide defeat deflect him from his purpose.

It's kind of admirable in "c'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre" sort of way. I really want to warm to Corbyn, as many of his policies are not a million miles away from my own beliefs, but for whatever reason I just can't. My take on him, never having met him, is that has been an outsider for so long he has major trust issues.

I'll almost certainly vote Labour anyway, I usually do, but as an unrepentant remoaner I am attracted to the LibDems this time around. As I live in a Lab/Lib marginal this decision may actually matter a little tiny bit.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Until charges are brought at the same scale against other parties this dwells in the realm of the tu quoque.

I completely agree actually, but as a politics junkie I've perhaps seen far more in the past few days of people screaming all over the internet at the other parties "why aren't you running with this?" to have mentally priced in all the things you're saying already.

Bottom line though *regardless of the specifics of the allegations* is that the other parties don't want to make too much of things being found under Tory rocks in case it leads to the underside of their own rocks being examined more carefully. Much like the MPs expenses saga actually.

On the face of it it looks like it should be a gift to the opposition (of whatever colour), in reality they can't afford to be seen too near it.

Lovely business, politics.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The real reason is almost certainly that she thinks she can wipe out Labour.

And, she may be right.

Of course, with a fixed term parliament Mrs May is unable to just say "we're going to have an early election", she needs to produce a reason other than because the timing is right to (probably) boost her majority. She can't really go to the country on a "you elected us in 2015 to fix the economy, so we want a chance for you to support us in continuing to do the same thing". She could have done so almost immediately after being elected as leader of the Tories, and she would have done well with a principalled "you voted for the Tories under Cameron, you now get the chance to vote for the Tories under me" - but she refused to do so, and can't now decide to do that. The card she has in her hand that she can play is the fact that the form of Brexit was undefined, and she can claim that an election now presents a chance to vote on her plan.

Of course, it's still just a card in the political game rather than the real reason - which is still that she sees a really good chance of winning the current round in the game while Labour are in total meltdown, and doesn't want to risk waiting until 2020 where the outcome is less clear. She then has 5 years to see what cards come her way, and build a winning hand for the next round in the game.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I certainly think that Corbyn enjoys campaigning more than any other part of his job, and he must have an unshakeable belief in full-blooded socialism to have carried a torch for it throughout the Thatcher/Blair years. I don't think he's panicked so much as exasperated that people don't get it; as I've said before, if he doesn't succeed this time he will try again next time around, or arrange for an anointed successor to do so. He won't let a little thing like a landslide defeat deflect him from his purpose.

It's kind of admirable in "c'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre" sort of way. I really want to warm to Corbyn, as many of his policies are not a million miles away from my own beliefs, but for whatever reason I just can't. My take on him, never having met him, is that has been an outsider for so long he has major trust issues.

I'll almost certainly vote Labour anyway, I usually do, but as an unrepentant remoaner I am attracted to the LibDems this time around. As I live in a Lab/Lib marginal this decision may actually matter a little tiny bit.

He also loves the adulation. He hasn't had much experience of it in the past. Everybody likes to feel loved and it feeds his Lenin leading the people fantasy.

I really don't know at the moment which I detest more, the UKIP in a skirt and red heels version of the Conservative party or the Corbyn/McDonnell version of the Labour one. what I think is more of a dilemma is what if you live where you can vote for a person of either party whom you know is out of sympathy with their party but will be obliged to vote according to what their whips tell them.

I will probably vote LibDem.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, I did enjoy May's slip of the tongue: we want to become global leaders in stopping tourism. Maybe.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do you really think this is true? I mean, the bit about Corbyn relishing the campaign. You may be right, but I wonder if there is an icy splinter of panic in him as well, in the face of impending Gotterdammerung, sorry about the missing umlauts.

I certainly think that Corbyn enjoys campaigning more than any other part of his job, and he must have an unshakeable belief in full-blooded socialism to have carried a torch for it throughout the Thatcher/Blair years. I don't think he's panicked so much as exasperated that people don't get it; as I've said before, if he doesn't succeed this time he will try again next time around, or arrange for an anointed successor to do so. He won't let a little thing like a landslide defeat deflect him from his purpose.

It's kind of admirable in "c'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre" sort of way. I really want to warm to Corbyn, as many of his policies are not a million miles away from my own beliefs, but for whatever reason I just can't. My take on him, never having met him, is that has been an outsider for so long he has major trust issues.

I'll almost certainly vote Labour anyway, I usually do, but as an unrepentant remoaner I am attracted to the LibDems this time around. As I live in a Lab/Lib marginal this decision may actually matter a little tiny bit.

Fair assessment. I would like to meet him, he is probably quite a decent guy. I live in a Tory safe seat, so my vote is utterly meaningless, despite Gina Miller's exhortations.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Hmm. Labour will probably have a disastrous election, but I really don't see them terminally melting down. Unlike in Scotland, there is no sufficiently strong party waiting in the wings to take their place.

The Lib Dems might have been just party, however they are starting this
election from too far back. They have plenty of support in certain wealthy constituencies where Labour will never win, but there are large parts of the country where they have never been popular.

These things are cyclical. Labour went to all this in the nineteen eighties. Unfortunately there is probably plenty of pain for them ahead if history is going to repeat itself.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I completely agree actually, but as a politics junkie I've perhaps seen far more in the past few days of people screaming all over the internet at the other parties "why aren't you running with this?" to have mentally priced in all the things you're saying already.

I can think of other reasons - apart from a scenario where everyone is to blame - for why the other parties aren't making a huge noise about it. Legally commenting on ongoing investigations is unlikely to be wise, and likely to derail anything already in motion. Additionally, if it is likely that Thanet South represented the worst of the overspend - then all parties have a common interest in minimizing the profile of Farage and/or avoiding making the Brexit referendum itself the sole campaigning issue.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
These things are cyclical. Labour went to all this in the nineteen eighties. Unfortunately there is probably plenty of pain for them ahead if history is going to repeat itself.

And while Labour flirts with the extreme left, the Tories will have as a minimum an extra 5 years to undo the remaining great reforms brought in by Attlee and reinforced by Wilson. That's the tragedy which Momentum is forcing onto the UK.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Well, I did enjoy May's slip of the tongue: we want to become global leaders in stopping tourism.
[Killing me]

Or is it too true to be funny?
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Its lack of policy in this direction will, I believe, cost it dearly in the election.

A slight correction: its lack of policy and Corbyn's lack of ability to lead the party.
What lack of policy? Corbyn has plenty of policies.
From over the other side of the world, I find this all a bit baffling. I lean left quite far (although Gee referring to Corbyn and Labour as "extreme left" certainly had me [Killing me] ), and I can't find many of the above policies I would disagree with. But - why do people assume Labour are unelectable? Surely no one has any faith in polls after the Yanks elected Lord Voldemort, contrary to nearly all indicators?
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Sorry - just saw Rosa has already posted the above link.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
The polls weren't that far out with Trump. They predicted roughly a 4% majority in the vote for Clinton: the end result was 1%. The 2015 UK election was worse: the polls had the Tories and Labour level (on 34 each), whereas in fact the Tories were 7% ahead (38 to 31). The reasons for this are basically due to respondents being less willing to admit support for nasty candidates. There were the shy Tories of 1992, shy Trumpers, and it appears there were shy Tories in 2015 as well.

I suppose there may be Shy Corbynites but it seems unlikely.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

These things are cyclical. Labour went to all this in the nineteen eighties. Unfortunately there is probably plenty of pain for them ahead if history is going to repeat itself.

So where's Labour going to find the next John Smith?
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
The next John Smith is probably someone not yet in Parliament.

Labour traditionally select their leaders for those who have been MPs for some time (Blair, Brown and Corbyn were all elected in 1983 for example). I suspect this is going to have to change. The big Labour beasts still in Parliament are all associated with the Blair / Brown government, and they will probably have to move onto someone who presents something new, just like the Tories did.

[ 27. April 2017, 19:08: Message edited by: Cod ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Jeremy Corbyn has always looked good on the campaign trail, but that is where he starts and finishes.

The trouble with campaign meetings and rallies is that, by and large, they attract people committed to voting and probably voting for the party, and candidate, addressing the meeting or rally. All well and good but Mr Corbyn has to appeal to those people who WON'T go to meetings and rallies, he has to try to appeal to those with long memories of events like the Winter of Discontent, and he has to deal with an electorate who, always suspicious of Labour over the economy, trusted it with Blair and then saw the crash of 2008; and those people are the school governors grappling with PFI payments and people looking at glitzy PFI hospitals which has to choose between making PFI payments or keeping wards open.

Watching Len McCluskey get re-elected with less than 6% of the eligible membership's votes hasn't helped, (12% turnout, 45.4% of the vote) and nor have things like the creation of a third tier of Labour Party membership done anything to enhance JC and Labour's credentials in the democracy stakes.

But the biggest problem is that Corbyn and his team are still promising the earth as if there was a money tree hidden away in Westminster: the electorate isn't quite as gullible as it once was and can spot uncosted promises a mile away.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...the electorate isn't quite as gullible as it once was and can spot uncosted promises a mile away.

350 million/week, Trident, doubling election costs (ok not a promise).
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
What lack of policy? Corbyn has plenty of policies.

The received wisdom is that swing voters don't decide on policies. Rather the wisdom is that they decide on the perceived competence of the leader and on the perceived economic competence of the party.
I don't think there's a lot of evidence of May being more competent than Corbyn but she's better at looking it. And if Corbyn want to fight on the ground of economic issues he's showing little sign of it. (He set up a board of economic advisors from which everyone resigned because he was showing no interest.) Which is a pity because if they wanted to fight on economic grounds they would have a lot of material.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

he has to deal with an electorate who, always suspicious of Labour over the economy, trusted it with Blair and then saw the crash of 2008; and

A crash caused by a global financial crisis caused by financial de-regulation in the US of the sort that would have been pushed here had the Tories won in 2005.

quote:

those people are the school governors grappling with PFI payments and people looking at glitzy PFI hospitals which has to choose between making PFI payments or keeping wards open.

Not a fan of PFI, but again the Tories have continued to push this policy during their time in office. The current cost crunch is due to funding not keeping pace with an aging population (and the soaring cost of wages due to the need to employ short term staff).

quote:

But the biggest problem is that Corbyn and his team are still promising the earth as if there was a money tree hidden away in Westminster: the electorate isn't quite as gullible as it once was and can spot uncosted promises a mile away.

'Uncosted promises' are one of those irregular verbs - how much will the Trident replacement (with it's inevitable overruns) cost over and above that allocated to defence ?

Essentially at this point the Tories have no answers for people the young, those looking for better paid or paid work, or those who fear being un-able to secure housing in the future. I suspect this is partly why Labour continues to hold a lead among voters under 40.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
My recollection is that the Blair government was proud of the lack of regulation of the City.

Right up to 2008, when they'd been in power for nine years.

There were some countries where there was no financial crisis.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
My recollection is that the Blair government was proud of the lack of regulation of the City.

Right up to 2008, when they'd been in power for nine years.

Absolutely, at that point it was orthodoxy of sorts but the idea that there was the choice of another party pushing for more regulation would be inaccurate - quite the opposite. Here are some quotes from that Tory report (published in 2007):

"The government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money"

"We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk"

and of course there is their record in government and on bank regulation since.

[ 27. April 2017, 23:14: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

[Roll Eyes]
Cause and effect are not simultaneous. It is unfornutate that the electorate don't care to discern.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
If you've done nothing to prevent it in nine years, you're the cause or at least part of it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If there was compelling evidence at the time that the banking sector was under regulated, and that the risks being taken by the banks was excessive and Parliament should have acted to force banks to be more cautious (with inevitable costs to the banks that would be passed onto their customers), then you would have a point. With hindsight the problems building up are obvious, but was it anywhere near as obvious before the crash? It certainly wasn't obvious enough for the Opposition to push the government to increased regulation - quite the opposite, they were pushing for less regulation which would have made the eventual crash worse.

Even if the UK had tougher regulations such that the losses for the banks in their UK operations were reduced, that would have made no difference at all to the losses made in other parts of the world.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.

I believe Northern Rock and RBS had a few issues.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.

Yes, they do have to own it. So do the Tories, who at the time were pressing for even less regulation.

Brown saved the UK economy, at a massive cost. But I think history will be kinder to him than we are currently.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The amazing thing that nobody much talks about these days is that Brown's "prudence" and "no more boom and bust" actually worked for a while.

He seemed like a cantankerous old fart, but his economic policies actually seemed to work.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The amazing thing that nobody much talks about these days is that Brown's "prudence" and "no more boom and bust" actually worked for a while.

1997-2007 if I remember correctly.
quote:


He seemed like a cantankerous old fart, but his economic policies actually seemed to work.

The one credible MP who really had his eye on the ball back in 2007 was Vince Cable of the LibDems. He foresaw the problems and would have made a far better job of Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2010-2015 coalition than George Osborne did. Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I was just about to bring him up. Best Chancellor we never had.
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.

I believe Northern Rock and RBS had a few issues.
Not in New Zealand, which is the "this country" to which I think Cod refers.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.

That's one way of looking at it - another might be that very few majority coalition partners in the world countenance handing over control of the purse strings to the juniors.

There are exceptions but the point stands I think - power and money are hand in hand, you don't want to give one of them away if you're calling the shots.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.

I believe Northern Rock and RBS had a few issues.
Not in New Zealand, which is the "this country" to which I think Cod refers.
Sorry, insufficient coffee. However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere. The leak at the front of the Titanic soon became everyone's problem.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that if something bad happens during a Tory government it's the Tories' fault for doing it, and if something bad happens during a Labour government it's the Tories' fault for not arguing against it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.

That's one way of looking at it - another might be that very few majority coalition partners in the world countenance handing over control of the purse strings to the juniors.

There are exceptions but the point stands I think - power and money are hand in hand, you don't want to give one of them away if you're calling the shots.

Even if it isn't in the national interest? The Tories have a long and dishonourable history of putting the party before the country, from Macmillan's "Night of the long knives", through the manner in which Margaret Thatcher was ditched to the EU Referendum.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere.

The nations that weathered the 2008 financial crisis best were generally those with both strong domestic regulations and limited international financial investment. In the UK, Northern Rock was largely the result of poor investments by the bank in the UK, a lot of risky lending - tighter regulation might have limited things there, but if it was just Northern Rock it wouldn't have been a problem, just another company having problems, if not for the larger global problems they'd have likely been bought out by a larger bank with restructuring and branch closures but ultimately little impact beyond that to staff and some of their customers. On the other hand, the problems with RBS were driven largely by their substantial operations in the US, and elsewhere, and no amount of UK regulation would have made any difference then. The UK is a major international financial player, the big UK banks all have far greater investments and interests overseas than in the UK - that provides strength in face of domestic UK issues, but added risk when things go down hill internationally.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that if something bad happens during a Tory government it's the Tories' fault for doing it, and if something bad happens during a Labour government it's the Tories' fault for not arguing against it.
I've got sympathy for governments of all shades. So much real power now resides in corporations and markets that democratically elected governments don't have much say. They are in hock to business interests.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What made the clear-up post 2008 so toxic in the UK was the way that Brown and Darling used political muscle - in other words, bullied - one OKish institution (The Halifax) into taking on another Scottish basket case (Bank of Scotland) and then, when that looked like it was going tits-up forced another largely south-of-the-border bank (Lloyds) to take on the problem.

The bottom line is that the so-called clear-up has been nothing of the sort, and the bail outs that took place (some still happening) were the wrong ones.

First off, RBS should have been allowed to fail or, at the very least, broken up; furthermore ALL of its main board directors should have been disbarred for life. The retail arm should have been left with NatWest and the rest of it swept away.

Northern Rock should have been taken over by the government on a permanent basis - perhaps a later decision to resurrect the Girobank to handle this at arms'-length might have been a good idea.

All UK banks should have been forced to split retail and commercial banking arms within 2 years and proper regulation put in place to keep the two separate, rather than relying on so-called Chinese Walls. I worked in the city and can tell you that the in-joke was that internal Chinese Walls were made of paper...

Most important: we should have looked at those economies left relatively unscathed by the 2008 nonsense and learned from them. While it was wrong to credit Kevin Rudd with 'saving' Australia from the worst of the global crisis, the underlying strength of the Australian economy and old-fashioned prudence on the part of past governments in particular laid the foundations for Australia being so resilient.

We in the UK are constantly telling ourselves how fantastic and world-beating some of our institutions are - the NHS and Civil Service spring to mind. The fact is there are plenty of places in the world which are better at running themselves than us, where long-term thinking is a way of life, where state institutions are left to get on with things without being wrenched in diametically opposing directions every whip-stitch, and where private institutions reward loyalty and thrift, rather than chasing quick profits.
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
Can I just clarify if you think Labour forced the merger of Halifax and Bank of Scotland in 2001? Or if you mistakenly believe it didn't happen until 2008?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that if something bad happens during a Tory government it's the Tories' fault for doing it, and if something bad happens during a Labour government it's the Tories' fault for not arguing against it.
This current government's schtick seems to be to blame Labour for everything, even though the Tories have been majority-government for almost a decade.

Only this morning, the housing minister was blaming Labour for not building enough houses (even though their figures are better than the Tories).
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Can I just clarify if you think Labour forced the merger of Halifax and Bank of Scotland in 2001? Or if you mistakenly believe it didn't happen until 2008?

And if you've managed to confuse Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland? A fairly basic mistake which makes me wonder about the robustness of rest of your analysis.

Tubbs
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The Halifax-Bank of Scotland merger in 2001 was a pretty gradual process and it was only in 2008 that the true picture of their combined lending book became apparent.

Questions had been raised at the time of the original merger about the stability of BoS but they were swept aside by the Treasury.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Even if it isn't in the national interest?

Again, regardless of party, if you've just become the largest party in a parliament then it takes massive self-doubt, or indeed self-belief, to de-couple that result from the economic prospectus you were standing on and say "you know what, even though everything we've said and proposed hangs on the national finances, we're going to give away stewardship of the same to the party that came third/fourth/whatever."

Doesn't even look good on paper.

I think it has been done from time to time in Germany, but even there not as a preference. Other than that, the only other example I can think of is the bad-tempered Mugabe/Tsvangirai power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe. ZANU-PF gave the MDC the treasury in the hope that the basket case Zimbabwean economy would taint them as much as it had tainted ZANU-PF.

As it happens the MDC neatly sidestepped the problem by introducing US dollar. With produce back on the shelves, and a workable currency, ZANU-PF took back the treasury. And ran the economy back into the ground.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere.

.. On the other hand, the problems with RBS were driven largely by their substantial operations in the US, and elsewhere, and no amount of UK regulation would have made any difference then. The UK is a major international financial player, the big UK banks all have far greater investments and interests overseas than in the UK - that provides strength in face of domestic UK issues, but added risk when things go down hill internationally.
And RBS' acquisition of ABN AMRO. The £20bn of the £28bn loss they announced in January 2009 was due to the ABN AMRO acquisition.

Tubbs
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere.

.. On the other hand, the problems with RBS were driven largely by their substantial operations in the US, and elsewhere, and no amount of UK regulation would have made any difference then. The UK is a major international financial player, the big UK banks all have far greater investments and interests overseas than in the UK - that provides strength in face of domestic UK issues, but added risk when things go down hill internationally.
And RBS' acquisition of ABN AMRO. The £20bn of the £28bn loss they announced in January 2009 was due to the ABN AMRO acquisition.

Tubbs

Quite - RBS just got greedy. About the only thing that emerges from RBS with much credit is NatWest, which was famously dull, boring and sound when they bought it, and largely continues to be dull, boring and sound as it trundles along through the chaos engulfing the group around it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Actually I think the problems with the banks were largely due to unsustainable mortgage lending, which was itself caused by prudent economic management by Brown (so the true risks of lending to self-employed people who signed off their own books wasn't considered) and a massively overheating housing market.

Whilst the economy was ticking along nicely, relatively few people went bust so there wasn't any great strain on these mortgages. But as soon as the "never going to happen again" crash happened - largely associated with the crash in the USA because few had really considered the impact of sub-prime mortgages in the USA on the British banking sector - suddenly the banks realised that they had no handle on who had the mortgages they'd dished out and no way to assess the risk of them.

As a personal anecdote, we bought our first house in 2001 based on a lowish mortgage arranged by a mortgage broker who seemed to be able to do it just by pressing a few buttons. After several years of tough economic times we moved and got a bigger mortgage with RBOS largely based on our ability to pay the smaller one.

Fortunately we significantly underestimated how much we could afford so were never in a position to miss payments and in fact the RBOS loan was of a type that allowed us to significantly overpay when times were good.

But it could so easily have been different - if we had borrowed us much as we were offered; if we hadn't overpayed so much every month; if we had had unexpected costs (another child perhaps).

I don't think anyone who offered or gave us a mortgage in this time ever properly considered our financial situation, so it was pure luck that we ended up being able to pay off the loans we had.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
RBOS

sorry, I'm not trying to be funny, RBS or HBOS?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It was the One Account, which was originally a product from the Royal Bank of Scotland I think. I can't remember at what point it was taken over or merged with Natwest
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It was the One Account, which was originally a product from the Royal Bank of Scotland I think. I can't remember at what point it was taken over or merged with Natwest

thanks - RBS then (the O isn't used as it gets confused with what was HBOS). Incidentally, you've unwittingly put your finger on the problem with RBS there by leaving out an option for what actually happened!

RBS was a relatively small, sleepy bank which got hi-jacked by people with delusions of grandeur. They actually took over NatWest, which was far larger, in a 2000 hostile takeover bid which was described even at the time as audacious.

That gave them the taste for repeating the experiment with ABN-Amro. If, much like the building societies that became banks actually, they'd been happy to make good money doing what they were good at and knew about, rather than trying to become gilded masters of the universe...
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually I think the problems with the banks were largely due to unsustainable mortgage lending, which was itself caused by prudent economic management by Brown (so the true risks of lending to self-employed people who signed off their own books wasn't considered) and a massively overheating housing market.

Here's what the Economist has to say about it.

Yes, the problem was unsustainable lending - but in the US. This wouldn't have been a problem if banks hadn't invested in the securities createdon the basis of that lending. I note that the article points the finger not only at American banks but European ones as well. Furthermore, central banks were asleep at the wheel. There is even specific mention of how the BoE (the most important central bank) lost oversight of financial regulation. We should all remember which government did that.

I've not much liking for the Tories. However, the fact remains that we can only guess at how they would have managed the City had they been in power after 1997. They were responsible for the Big Bang, which began London's huge expansion. We also know that they are generally keen on the free flow of money and the development of high finance. However, we also know that a good many of their ranks come from that background, and would have had a good idea what needed to be done in terms of governance.

On the other hand, we do know that Labour fucked up. From 1997 onwards they were in charge of a hugely expanding financial sector, the City of London, a coke-fuelled spider that sits at the centre of a web of British-controlled tax havens; a financial sector that became the biggest in the world during their time in office. It's simply no good to absolve them from blame on the assumption that the Tories would have been even worse. The sector became too big to fail. I actually think Brown deserves some credit for the way he handled the crisis, but just means he was good at clearing up his (and Blair's) government's own mess.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
]The one credible MP who really had his eye on the ball back in 2007 was Vince Cable of the LibDems. He foresaw the problems and would have made a far better job of Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2010-2015 coalition than George Osborne did. Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.

He is standing for election once again in Twickenham. He was a very popular local MP, and I expect he will regain the seat.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Given that the banks are planning their exodus from the city, that is one problem the Tories seem to be solving.

sigh.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Here's what the Economist has to say about it.

Yes, the problem was unsustainable lending - but in the US. This wouldn't have been a problem if banks hadn't invested in the securities createdon the basis of that lending. I note that the article points the finger not only at American banks but European ones as well.

As it says in your linked article, the bankers had lost track of the risky debt by packaging it up with high quality loans. Neither the buyers nor sellers of CDO's had much idea of which actual mortgages were backing them. The managers of the banks had little knowledge or understanding of what their traders were doing.

European banks can hardly be blamed too much for investing in securities that were AAA-rated by supposedly reputable ratings agencies.

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Furthermore, central banks were asleep at the wheel. There is even specific mention of how the BoE (the most important central bank) lost oversight of financial regulation. We should all remember which government did that.

Which government did what? It was the independent Bank of England that failed to regulate the banks correctly. Brown made the BoE independent on day 1 of his Chancellorship (more or less) to de-politicise monetary policy, a point of vulnerability for previous Labour governments. It would also give him deniability for cock-ups like 2008, of course; somewhat prescient that one.

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

I've not much liking for the Tories. However, the fact remains that we can only guess at how they would have managed the City had they been in power after 1997. They were responsible for the Big Bang, which began London's huge expansion. We also know that they are generally keen on the free flow of money and the development of high finance. However, we also know that a good many of their ranks come from that background, and would have had a good idea what needed to be done in terms of governance.

Like all counterfactuals, this may or not be true and has little value unless you subscribe to multiverse theory. I'm afraid it may be just old-school "you can trust the Tories with money" bollocks, a myth that was exploded once and for all on16th September 1992.
One thing we know for certain about the Tories is that are very much in favour of banks making lots and lots of money.

I propose another counterfactual: In March 2006 Chancellor Brown proposes the "Banking and Finance (Regulation)" bill, requiring banks to increase their capital ratios and diligently assess the composition of all financial products they trade in. The howls of derision from the Tory benches would have been loud (not deafening, there weren't enough of them and some were getting on a bit).

It would have been politically very difficult for any government to increase financial regulation in the late 90's/ early noughties. Speaking for myself, as someone who had a relatively high income and little capital, the ability to borrow easily was very important to me. I never lived beyond my means, but I know plenty who did. In the end almost all of us are to blame for the events of 2008.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

However, we also know that a good many of their ranks come from that background, and would have had a good idea what needed to be done in terms of governance.

This is often brought up, and the example that the Tories usually trot out is John Redwood (because for a time he was employed both as an MP and in a financial house). Now guess who wrote this in 2007:

"We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk"

That would be the Chairman of the Tories "Economic Competitiveness Policy Group", one Rt Hon John Redwood.

[Incidentally, it wasn't just a US generated problem - rather that when the market in US mortgage securities froze up, it was likely to affect the rest of the market as people were forced to sell other securities to cover. This was part of the problem faced by Northern Rock].

Besides, there's another test. Exactly what have the Tories done since then to reduce the chances of another crisis? They quietly shelved an FCA inquiry and largely ignored the findings of the commission on banking regulation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Yes, the problem was unsustainable lending - but in the US. This wouldn't have been a problem if banks hadn't invested in the securities createdon the basis of that lending. I note that the article points the finger not only at American banks but European ones as well.

I'm not pretending to be a economist, but my understanding of the problems with Northern Rock were to a large degree due to bad mortage lending in the UK. But I'm sure the subprime mortgages in the USA were a significant part of the problem too.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not pretending to be a economist, but my understanding of the problems with Northern Rock were to a large degree due to bad mortage lending in the UK.

Northern Rock had a business model where they borrowed on the overnight markets (at low rates) to lend for 30 years (and then securitised those mortgages and sold them on). Short term inter-bank loans dried up, and everyone tried to get out of mortgage securities at once (people sold other securities to cover the losses in their US portfolios). The combination of both these things killed their business model (which was criminally over optimistic to start with).
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually I think the problems with the banks were largely due to unsustainable mortgage lending, which was itself caused by prudent economic management by Brown (so the true risks of lending to self-employed people who signed off their own books wasn't considered) and a massively overheating housing market.

Here's what the Economist has to say about it.

Here's what an actual economist* thinks...

History will be very kind to Brown and Darling. Their response to the crisis was brave and precisely what the country and world needed.

More to the point, Osborne's record is just dreadful (see here for details). And the Tories have made clear that they will follow the same insane** policies in a situation made worse by Brexit.

Even if I didn't agree with Corbyn*** on policy (most of his policies I agree with and the idea that he is hard-left is just stupid, especially when we are being governed by a hard-right party at the moment. Overton window anyone?), the incompetence and immorality of the current Conservative government makes voting for Labour (or another party than can win where you live) the obvious choice.

AFZ

*Most 'economists' interviewed on TV and radio are not academics who study the subject they are spokespeople for the City
**The description of the Conservative Party's economic policy as 'insane' was by that well-known leftie Martin Wolf (Economics Editor of the FT)
***I have been disappointed by his leadership and lack of ability to cut through but if you look at the policies themselves they are hugely popular. (recent research showed that newspapers only report Labour policies accurately 19% of the time, 0% for the Mail and Express
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Besides, there's another test. Exactly what have the Tories done since then to reduce the chances of another crisis? They quietly shelved an FCA inquiry and largely ignored the findings of the commission on banking regulation.

Off the top of my head: implementation of the Basel III Accords, ring-fencing (to be completed by January 2019), and forcing mortgage lenders to take lifestyle factors into account.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Even if I didn't agree with Corbyn*** on policy

...

recent research showed that newspapers only report Labour policies accurately 19% of the time

Of course, Labour policy and what Corbyn says when speaking to the media can often be two completely different things...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Off the top of my head: implementation of the Basel III Accords, ring-fencing (to be completed by January 2019), and forcing mortgage lenders to take lifestyle factors into account.

Something called Basel III was going to be implemented anyway - the only bun-fight was over what was going to be inside it (the capital ratios mandated by Basel III are marginally under that of Lehman before it's collapse). The 'lifestyle-factors' tinkers at the very margins - most of the unwise lending would have happened regardless. Ring fencing doesn't deal with opacity or leverage which were the two big problems during the financial crisis, it gives an illusion of safety at best.

[ 30. April 2017, 18:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Not sure (genuinely) about ring-fencing. ISTM that in a well-functioning market the regulator should not be in a better position than the bank or its auditors to judge risks to the bank's own balance sheet, and the reason this did not happen in the past is that the lack of ring-fencing, and the silly bonus structures, gave the banks and their employees perverse incentives not to care. IOW, ring-fencing is supposed to force the banks to put their own houses in order regarding exotic products and silly degrees of leverage.

Anyway, I have every confidence that Mr Brown or Mr Miliband would have done the same or better than the Tories with regard to bank regulation. I have much less confidence in Mr Corbyn, because I don't trust him to understand the issues involved*, and nor do I trust (for reasons already stated) his capacity to work with people who do understand the issues.


* As an example of Mr Corbyn's ignorance on economic matters: just after the Brexit vote it was widely reported that the fall in the value of the pound had caused the economy to slump from the fifth to the sixth largest economy in the world. That is in fact Not How It Works and the WEF still has the UK at fifth, but that did not prevent Mr Corbyn repeating in his big speech that Britain was the sixth largest.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

but that did not prevent Mr Corbyn repeating in his big speech that Britain was the sixth largest.

Or the former tory trade minister (in the BBC article you mention).

The BBC article also pretty much says that is how it works, but that the readings are not taken yet. That's like saying Leicester haven't dropped any places because the seasons not finished. Or perhaps Tennis rankings would be a better analogy.
The IMF predict us (still/back) ahead of France for 2017 anyhow, with them having 0.2 growth in Dollars, and us having 13% loss in dollars from 2015 but I'm not sure how they do that.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not sure (genuinely) about ring-fencing. ISTM that in a well-functioning market the regulator should not be in a better position than the bank or its auditors to judge risks to the bank's own balance sheet, and the reason this did not happen in the past is that the lack of ring-fencing, and the silly bonus structures, gave the banks and their employees perverse incentives not to care.

I'm not sure ring fencing things into 'bad' and 'good' components really helps - risk can still build up, and of course last time the immediate cause of the crisis was the failure of two banks which were effectively ring fenced (Bear and Lehmans).

By default everything dodgy will be thrown into the 'bad bank' side, and while the travails of retail customers was given as the reason last time for rescuing the banks, in the case of another systemic collapse all bets are off anyway.

Which is why the only thing helps is more transparency etc.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
Meanwhile, Diane Abbott reveals a mastery of numbers almost as strong as Donald Trump's.

(20 years ago, we had a Labour government elected with a massive landslide. Now we have people like Ms Abbott at the very top of the party. Well done, Jeremy!)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
(20 years ago, we had a Labour government elected with a massive landslide. Now we have people like Ms Abbott at the very top of the party. Well done, Jeremy!)

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, Amber Rudd, Liam Fox, David Davis, and Jeremy 'rhyming slang' Hunt all get a free pass.

I'd rather have Kier Starmer sitting across from Junker than a combination of Johnson and Davis. I mean, [Help]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Meanwhile, Diane Abbott reveals a mastery of numbers almost as strong as Donald Trump's.

I'd rather someone who couldn't remember the numbers at an interview whose underlying policy actually worked than vice versa.
That said, Abbott's an experienced politician. She should have made sure she could reel out the right numbers backwards.

Meanwhile May, having distracted herself from the EU negotiations by calling an unnecessary election, is picking an unnecessary fight with Juncker.

[ 02. May 2017, 21:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'd rather someone who couldn't remember the numbers at an interview whose underlying policy actually worked than vice versa.
That said, Abbott's an experienced politician. She should have made sure she could reel out the right numbers backwards.

Is it true she'd got the numbers right at a few interviews immediately before. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism. But she did nothing wrong in fluffing a few numbers. She'd given seven interviews that morning and may have been brain fatigued. Her mistake is an irrelevant storm in a teacup.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism. But she did nothing wrong in fluffing a few numbers.

Rule #1: Don't make shit up. She may well have forgotten the numbers, and also forgotten to bring any notes with her in case she did forget the numbers. In which case, say that you concluded that the numbers were very affordable, apologize for not having the figures to hand, promise to follow up with the correct figures after the interview, and then do so.

She made those numbers up. She lied.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think you will find that is rule #2

Rule #1 is Don't tell lies. Like "We could give 350M a week to the NHS".

Storm in a teacup. A distraction from the fact that Mrs May is avoiding all discussion because she would fluff more than a few numbers.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

She made those numbers up. She lied.

I don't think she did actually. I think what happened was that she experienced some stress earlier in the interview when the interviewer stopped her mid sentence (when he pointed out - pedantically - that the policy was to increase the number of both policemen and women) and this was enough to knock her off.

I don't think there is evidence that she was making up numbers, it seems to me that the most likely scenario is that these are all numbers that are associated with the project but that in the moment she couldn't quite grasp the right one to answer the question.

Yes, it shows a lack of experience. Yes, in retrospect I'm sure she's thinking that she should have done a whole lot better in getting the correct message out.

But to say that she's lying.. well, that's a bit extreme.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Meanwhile, Roger Mullin (previously an SNP MP as of yesterday) has written to the electoral commission regarding £5m of donations to the Conservative Party from HSBC, funnelled through a failing company owned by the party treasurer.

Hopefully this has legs, and the mainstream media will pick it up. I know Robert Peston (ITV) has seen it, because he retweeted it last night, and people have been furiously tagging the BBC on it.

(Letter here)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Labour should be going hard on 7 years' austerity, a crumbling NHS, cuts to education, cuts to most things, but I fear that it's too late. Brexit seems to have mesmerized people, and Mrs U-turn is managing to hide away in various secret village halls. I'm not sure how depressing it is. Quite a lot.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I'm strangely hopeful of a surprise in this election. Maybe many more young people will vote this time?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism.

What's there to despise? It's mostly about making sure people aren't shafted so much.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism.

What's there to despise? It's mostly about making sure people aren't shafted so much.
Plenty of people are content to see the poor and the disabled shafted, as long as they keep their 4x4s and their holiday in Tuscany, or whatever their equivalent is. Keep taxes low, and squeeze the poor - it's a winner.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm strangely hopeful of a surprise in this election. Maybe many more young people will vote this time?

I'm not sure about young people, but there is some evidence in recent polling that the Don't Knows are breaking for Labour rather than LibDem.

In a way, the Tories are disadvantaged by starting the campaign with such huge leads - it was highly unlikely that they would increase them, and therefore the momentum is with Labour. (The Momentum is, too...) There must be a substantial group of voters who don't think much of Corbyn, but don't want a Tory super-landslide either. As long as Labour are 10-20 points behind, they can vote Labour without worrying about handing Corbyn the keys to No.10. If Labour start to make serious headway in the polls, these voters may act like negative feedback and pull them down again.

Having said that, I'm still not convinced that the pollsters have driven the "shy Tory" problem out of their data, so the Tory lead may be even higher. I think the only likely surprise at this election will be a Tory majority of "only" 100 or so. The SNP lock on Scotland, the concentration of Labour's core vote and tactical voting should prevent them from beating Blair.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The SNP lock on Scotland

Which I'm not convinced will hold this time around. For a start, with 56 seats and 50% vote share in 2015 there's almost now way to go up. And, they're going to be hit by the "not another referendum now" factor - though whether they will go Tory (who are also suffering from the "not another election" factor) or Lab and LibDem who knows? The Tories in Scotland are riding a wave at the moment, with a succesful election in 2016 - on the other hand they are working from a low point, and I don't think Mrs May turning up to a hut in the woods creates an impression that Scotland is all that important. There is a concerted campaign to oust our Tory MP this time round, hopefully that will succeed and there won't be any other Tories sneaking in elsewhere. The LibDem seat in the northern isles is very weak (the scandal of the 2015 campaign is still very fresh), but they may recover lost seats elsewhere. And, Labour could pull back a bit of lost ground.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
The Tories may gain an odd seat in Scotland, but if the SNP lose any it'll most likely be to Labour. The Tories may gain 10-12 in Wales, but they may lose 10-12 to the lib Dems in England. Therefore it's all down to how many they can take off Labour in London and the Midlands.

The lack of a Lib Dem resurgence might indicate there will be a substantial tactical vote for Labour, which will limit this.

The only argument is over how Labour will lose; at the moment my feeling is "badly" rather than "catastrophically", but even that might be hopelessly optimistic.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I was thinking badly. To quote Slipknot, all hope is gone.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But to say that she's lying.. well, that's a bit extreme.

Perhaps - but then, I do tend to be a bit extreme about accuracy, because it matters. You can imagine I'm having rather a hard time with the current US administration.

You can't have a sensible discussion with random idiots wandering around poisoning the data.

And if she can't quite grasp the right number, and can't grasp that a cost of £300,000 - or even £80m - isn't enough to pay for 10,000 police officers phased in over four years, then she has no business being in charge of anything.

And "lack of experience"? Mrs. Abbott is 63. She's been an MP for the last 30 years, and was a candidate for Labour leader in 2010. How much experience do you think she needs?

(Recruiting 1/4 each year means you pay for 25,000 cop-years over 4 years. Her higher figure means she'd be paying each cop £3,200 pa: she's still a factor of 10 or more low. If she intended the £80m to be an average annual cost in the turn-on phase, she's still only paying each cop £12,800 pa (and this needs to be the total cost with overheads, taxes, overtime etc., not the cop's basic salary. It's still low by a factor of probably 3 or 4.)

(£350 million a week is also a lie. It's two different kinds of lies: the mythical figures lie that I'm concerned about here (the numbers are wrong - the net direct cost of the UK being in the EU is closer to a third of that) and also a political lie (suggesting that this extra money would be spent on the NHS)).

[ 03. May 2017, 15:10: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Look, I'm not thick, I can obviously appreciate that some of the numbers she mentioned were not answers to the question.

But saying that she's lying goes beyond her being so flustered that she can't focus on the numbers on her bit of paper and into the whole realms of fakery. She wasn't trying to fake anything, she just had a meltdown.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, a mistake isn't a lie.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I don't see anything in the incident on which to question her honesty. Nothing suggests she deliberately set out to deceive, there was no assertion that it was the right number, no sticking to her guns when questioned over it etc.

One could, if one liked, question her competence, in particular her competence at dealing with questions from the media.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Clever by May to attack the EU. The Brexit faithful will rally behind this, snotty little wogs, who do they think they are? Bugger the country, as long as the Tories win.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism.

What's there to despise? It's mostly about making sure people aren't shafted so much.
The small but telling problem with the Corbyn/ McDonnell/ Abbot approach is that it tends not to win elections. You can't do a huge amount to stop people being shafted if you end up with the sort of representation in Parliament that puts you somewhere between Michael Foot and George Lansbury.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm strangely hopeful of a surprise in this election. Maybe many more young people will vote this time?

Many young people did not vote in the Referendum for one reason or another. They may be motivated to come out and try and reverse what the oldies have done to their future.

The E.U Commission are doing their bit by coming out with the 'Woe unto you Blighty' and threats of a 100 billion divorce bill.
The Circus goes on. A surprise result would be nice, not looking likely at present with the only real contender in seeming disarray and rock bottom moral
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The E.U Commission are doing their bit by coming out with the 'Woe unto you Blighty' and threats of a 100 billion divorce bill.

I think you mean the Financial Times, and unless I've not been watching, the two institutions are separate.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Er yes, probably. Most of my misinformation comes from a radio in the workshop with hourly bulletins. I often think how large swaths of voters are influenced by this little dripfeed in the ear hole on a daily basis.

'Moral' was supposed to read 'morale'. Far be it to for me to suggest that anyone running in politics has rock bottom morals.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's an interesting example of how these things work. The FT first did the calculation of 60 billion euros, and reputable journalists (mostly) published stories on this with the added phrase, 'as calculated by FT'. However, the tabloids, always eager for anti-EU stuff, tended to write, 'EU hikes bill to 100 billion, vote Tory'. No, I made that last bit up.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that Tax Rises and Spending Cuts of another £15 Billion are needed for the UK to stop borrowing any more money by the year 2022. The Taxes introduced over the last 5 years now makes the Tax to GDP Ratio one of the highest in the Country's History. The Country is still deep in the Mire. (Basically Gordon Brown's fault but Mr Cameron did say at the time he would match Gordon's spending pledges £ for £ so he's part of the problem as well.) With major Firms relocating to Dublin to avoid paying UK Tax, Governments have got to keep them sweet by cutting their taxes.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I'd be interested to see a citation for that claim, Garden Hermit, as this:
https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-kingdom.pdf
seems to suggest that tax to GDP ratio is pretty low compared to recent history and well below the OECD average.

Blaming Brown for the mess is frankly nonsense, as had the tories not smothered the recovery we'd be well on the way to a decreasing debt to GDP ratio by now.

[ 03. May 2017, 18:44: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But saying that she's lying goes beyond her being so flustered that she can't focus on the numbers on her bit of paper and into the whole realms of fakery. She wasn't trying to fake anything, she just had a meltdown.

She got flustered and couldn't find the right numbers. OK. Obviously it's a bad thing for an experienced politician to get flustered by a radio interview, but it's not a culpable error.

But then she started spouting stupid numbers. She asserted as truth things that she did not know to be truth. That's lying. Any statement other than "I'm sorry, I can't find the exact figures right now, but the consequences were..." is a lie.

A lie caused by stupidity is less immoral than a lie caused by maliciousness, but it has the same effect.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
She got flustered and couldn't find the right numbers. OK. Obviously it's a bad thing for an experienced politician to get flustered by a radio interview, but it's not a culpable error.

Some politicians can put an end to tourism and get away with it.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd rather have Kier Starmer sitting across from Junker than a combination of Johnson and Davis.

I'm not sure I'd disagree with that, actually. Keir Starmer is one of the very few heavyweight front-line politicians that Labour have.

quote:
Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, Amber Rudd, Liam Fox, David Davis, and Jeremy 'rhyming slang' Hunt all get a free pass
That's the thing. I completely get that Abbott, Corbyn, McDonnell and the rest have a genuine passion for helping the disadvantaged in our society. But by positioning Labour some distance from the centre of British political opinion, and heavily seasoning with incompetence, they make the party unelectable.

This gives the Tories a free pass to do what they like. The end result is that the very people they want to help end up being hurt.

If “we forget why it’s worth having a Labour government, we end up not having one”. (David Milliband)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
But by positioning Labour some distance from the centre of British political opinion, and heavily seasoning with incompetence, they make the party unelectable.

I'm struggling to see that Labour have moved. I know the press, and LibDems and the Tories, are all telling me that's the case, very loudly and very often, but the actual policies they're promoting? Not so much.

I mean, if you want some genuinely radical left-wing policies that'd be guaranteed to scare the horses, I can probably come up with some. But Labour are still firmly in the European Social Democrat camp, and not at all far from the centre.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm struggling to see that Labour have moved. I know the press, and LibDems and the Tories, are all telling me that's the case, very loudly and very often, but the actual policies they're promoting? Not so much.

I'd agree. It's not just the usual suspects though; it's also the Labour leadership who are trying to put clear blue water between themselves and Blair. Even if they're not that far from Blair.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm struggling to see that Labour have moved. I know the press, and LibDems and the Tories, are all telling me that's the case, very loudly and very often, but the actual policies they're promoting? Not so much.

I'd agree. It's not just the usual suspects though; it's also the Labour leadership who are trying to put clear blue water between themselves and Blair. Even if they're not that far from Blair.
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
She got flustered and couldn't find the right numbers. OK. Obviously it's a bad thing for an experienced politician to get flustered by a radio interview, but it's not a culpable error.

Some politicians can put an end to tourism and get away with it.
Exactly. One mistake is laughed off, the other is scrutinised beyond belief.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Any statement other than "I'm sorry, I can't find the exact figures right now, but the consequences were..." is a lie.

A lie caused by stupidity is less immoral than a lie caused by maliciousness, but it has the same effect.

Leave it, can't you? She's a black woman who messed up publicly. No harm was done and the numbers were almost instantly corrected.

That's a long long way from actual lies put on buses which drove around the country and may have influenced a significant number of voters during the referendum.

But y'know, if you want to continue looking like a racist misogynist, keep spouting this line about it being lies and then watch as the Tory-UKIP machine set about dismantling the western liberal state in association with Trump and President Le Penn.

You are welcome.

[ 04. May 2017, 07:10: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, just on the subject of statements about money, Diane Abbott makes a mistake about money for the police and it's top news whereas someone like Boris had a relatively free ride in a bus displaying a blatant lie about money for the NHS.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
Oh, you mean John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, speaking at a public meeting which other members of the public also get to attend.

How unlike our own Mrs May, whose every move is choreographed and all her backdrops tightly controlled by her crack team of SPADs. Heaven forfend she should ever be allowed out into the wild to show us just how strong and stable she is.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
And? So what?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
You can do wonders with Photoshop these days.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
And? So what?
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.

Riiight. Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.

Riiight. Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
This isn't the first time that Corbyn or McDonnell have turned up to events where people have paraded extremist banners.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mr cheesy:
quote:
Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
Maybe not, but you can certainly control them once they're there.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, it isn't as though senior members of the Conservative Party haven't associated themselves with tyrannical, repressive and genocidal governments either.

But, I suppose we can be thankful that the Labour manifesto isn't copied from the Communist Party, unlike large parts of the Conservative manifesto lifted from the BNP.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
mr cheesy:
quote:
Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
Maybe not, but you can certainly control them once they're there.
Are you saying locking journalists in a room was a good thing?

Ye gods.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, I suppose we can be thankful that the Labour manifesto isn't copied from the Communist Party, unlike large parts of the Conservative manifesto lifted from the BNP.

They're going to renationalise the railways?!
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mr cheesy:
quote:
Are you saying locking journalists in a room was a good thing?

No, the exact opposite. Perhaps I should have added an emoticon to make my meaning clearer.

I think it's scary too. [Help]

[ 04. May 2017, 10:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.

Do you know the date of the photo?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This isn't the first time that Corbyn or McDonnell have turned up to events where people have paraded extremist banners.

Where does inviting a leader of a death squad to tea rank on your list of priorities?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
mr cheesy:
quote:
Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
Maybe not, but you can certainly control them once they're there.
That is not a good look.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.

Do you know the date of the photo?
1 May 2017
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You can do wonders with Photoshop these days.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-4xuGuXsAAAmZF.jpg
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
She's a black woman who messed up publicly.

...

But y'know, if you want to continue looking like a racist misogynist, keep spouting this line about it being lies

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous attempt to play the sex and race cards I have ever seen. LC has not even so much as hinted at the suggestion that either her sex or her race is relevant to the story, nor is there any reason to suppose that LC would treat differently any other politician who gave such a train wreck of an interview featuring such obviously incorrect claims.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
LC has not even so much as hinted at the suggestion that either her sex or her race is relevant to the story

Yes, I thought it was a reach, but then I thought LC's claim that she lied was also a reach (especially as she gave the correct information earlier in the week). It seemed to be a classic case of interviewee freeze, which doesn't remove media bias of course.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous attempt to play the sex and race cards I have ever seen. LC has not even so much as hinted at the suggestion that either her sex or her race is relevant to the story, nor is there any reason to suppose that LC would treat differently any other politician who gave such a train wreck of an interview featuring such obviously incorrect claims.

Bullshit. If it was May who fluffed a tv interview or Boris who made some claims which had to be corrected, it'd blow over very quickly.

It isn't a "card", it's the truth. Black woman makes a mistake and everyone piles on. White Eton-educated man is permanently making mistakes, then somehow that's just part of his personality.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There is also another factor in play. Politicians to the right of centre have a much easier ride through the media than those to the left. And, at the moment anyone strongly associated with Jeremy Corbyn will have to adhere to very high standards or become an example in the media of the shambles that a Corbyn led government would be. Which, of course, ignores the shambles that government under both Cameron and May has been.

Which doesn't mean that gender and race aren't part of the mix.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It isn't a "card", it's the truth. Black woman makes a mistake and everyone piles on. White Eton-educated man is permanently making mistakes, then somehow that's just part of his personality.

Or is May purely cynical, or did she really believe the 'haz cat can't be deported' story.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't a "card", it's the truth. Black woman makes a mistake and everyone piles on.

I'm not convinced. From years of watching the BBC "This Week", on which she was a regular commentator, I've long held the view that Abbott is - shall we say? - not the most able of politicians, and that the media wish to bring that out. Is it sexist or racist? I don't think so. Is it personal? Yes, it probably is.

[ 05. May 2017, 07:50: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Diane Abbott does seem to be one of those people, like Gypsies and Travellers, whom it is considered socially acceptable to pick on. I'm thinking of incidents like Mr Davis' 'Specsavers' comments.

I don't think it's as simple as racism because she's hardly the only black MP. My suspicion is that when she first entered Parliament in the 80s, she was the epitome of the Women's Lib Greenham Common Free Mandela End Discrimination stereotype that it was socially acceptable to mock, and even though the things she campaigned for are now largely mainstream, the 'socially acceptable to mock' label has stuck to her.

Having said all that, I don't believe LC is racist and the fact that she gets unduly picked on doesn't mean she shouldn't be called out when she genuinely does something daft, as in the interview.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
Diane Abbott does come across as a bit self-righteous which can be annoying, and contribute to why people want to take her down a peg or two.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bullshit. If it was May who fluffed a tv interview or Boris who made some claims which had to be corrected, it'd blow over very quickly.

Does anyone doubt that if Jeremy Corbyn had given the same interview as Diane Abbot he would have received the same media response, or even even a more scathing and widely published one? I certainly don't.

You can say the media is biased against Abbot because she's a Labour MP if you want, and I won't deny it. But saying it's due to sex or race won't cut it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Does anyone doubt that if Jeremy Corbyn had given the same interview as Diane Abbot he would have received the same media response, or even even a more scathing and widely published one? I certainly don't.

You can say the media is biased against Abbot because she's a Labour MP if you want, and I won't deny it. But saying it's due to sex or race won't cut it.

Think whatever you like. Meanwhile keep turning the wheel that says this minor event is somehow showing something about the Labour party.

I despair of this country. People are literally voting in a party who is going to take things away from the masses.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I suppose they must count for something but in the local elections, for which turnout is a bit less than half that in a general election, the Tories have made big gains, partly at the expense of Labour but they appear to have wiped out UKIP, which has so far retained exactly none of the seats it previously held (0/64 and counting).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I suppose they must count for something but in the local elections, for which turnout is a bit less than half that in a general election, the Tories have made big gains, partly at the expense of Labour but they appear to have wiped out UKIP, which has so far retained exactly none of the seats it previously held (0/64 and counting).

The opposition generally fares better in local elections, held shortly before a General Election, than it does in the General Election. So if that pattern holds true Mrs May will have the sort of majority that makes Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair look like footling amateurs.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Anglican't, keep up the good work, you are giving value for money better than the Spectator and Private Eye combined.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I despair of this country. People are literally voting in a party who is going to take things away from the masses.

Yes but you seem to be oblivious to what is needed to restore proper democratic balance to British politics. The first thing is that Labour needs to ditch the dick at the top and all his foul entourage. Especially the likes of McDonnell. Next it needs to vote in an electable leader. Not another bell end like Owen Smith, but someone like Chuka Umunna, Sir Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper. The new leader needs to expel Momentum like Neil Kninnock did with Militant Tendency in the 1980's. Labour may be the largest political party in Western Europe with 600,000 members, but while it can get the endorsement of the Communist Party, it can't of the British electorate at large.

I believe that the British people are naturally socialist, centrist and conservative, small letters intended. A centre left party would be the natural party of government. Labour won three elections, and only when Gordon Brown was unfairly blamed for an international financial crisis did they lose power. And not to the Tories, but to a hung parliament in which Cameron and Clegg forged their unholy alliance. Canvassers up and down the country are getting the same message, which I agree with. We will never vote Labour under its present leadership.

I think the Labour Party should change the way it elects its leaders. When David and Ed Miliband squared off against each other, David among the parliamentary and constituency parties. Red Ed won with the leftie Union vote. That should be done away with. It was the changes Ed himself made that have sent Labour and the country into the tailspin it's now in. Labour should have learned the lessons of the 1980's and not repeated the same mistakes. The lesson is simple. If the party is run by a regime acceptable to the Communist Party, it's unlikely to be acceptable to British voters.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes but

There is no yes but. You're either a thieving Tory, a deluded part of the 75% who will benefit nothing at all from a Tory government or some other kind of lame-arsed idiot who is into voting against his own interests.

Which is it?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
There is no yes but. You're either a thieving Tory, a deluded part of the 75% who will benefit nothing at all from a Tory government or some other kind of lame-arsed idiot who is into voting against his own interests.

Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.

Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen

We don'y have a Le Pen here. Neither do we have a Macron, who is a centre left politician of the type Labour should be putting up.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
If you don't think the Tories are turning into UKIP and on a journey to Le Pen then you're even more deluded than I thought.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you don't think the Tories are turning into UKIP and on a journey to Le Pen then you're even more deluded than I thought.

The Tories are turning into Republicans. UKIP is still further down the same road.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
The Tories absorbed the right-leaning Lib Dem voters in 2015, and now they've managed to absorb the UKIP voters as well. This coalition is inherently very unstable; sometime during the next five years May will have to say or do something to piss off one or both of these groups.

Also, after five more years of "fuck the poor" policies, many people will realise that they really are better off under a moderate Labour government than a right-wing Tory one - this lesson has to be re-learned every 20 years or so. Whether Labour will be there for them when they come to this realisation is another matter.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.

At this point Corbyn isn't going to win anyway, and there is a large amount of value in not giving May too much of a majority.

The argument that if she has a large majority she can face down the hard-Brexiters doesn't really wash [she's going to use a large mandate as an excuse to ignore people, really?].
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Also, after five more years of "fuck the poor" policies, many people will realise that they really are better off under a moderate Labour government than a right-wing Tory one - this lesson has to be re-learned every 20 years or so. Whether Labour will be there for them when they come to this realisation is another matter.

You have the whole thing in a nutshell.

Depressing.

I'm one of the 'idle and relatively well off' but I find the world's rush to the right wing thoroughly depressing. Does no-one care anymore?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories absorbed the right-leaning Lib Dem voters in 2015, and now they've managed to absorb the UKIP voters as well. This coalition is inherently very unstable; sometime during the next five years May will have to say or do something to piss off one or both of these groups.

Also, after five more years of "fuck the poor" policies, many people will realise that they really are better off under a moderate Labour government than a right-wing Tory one - this lesson has to be re-learned every 20 years or so. Whether Labour will be there for them when they come to this realisation is another matter.

Good analysis. May has undoubtedly hit the sweet spot this time, bringing together former Lib Dem voters and UKIP voters, and Labour voters. I suppose Brexit has been part of this, and again, May has been clever getting the election in, before any Brexit shit-hits-the-fan.

I feel sorry for the poor and the disabled, and also the sick. Also angry at Labour, who have malfunctioned badly. But then most parties do after a long period in power, sort of nervous breakdown.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anglican't, keep up the good work, you are giving value for money better than the Spectator and Private Eye combined.

Thank you (I think...?)
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
The trouble on the left started brewing during the Blair years; many working-class Labour voters wanted most of all to get back to the days of "proper jobs" in proper, manufacturing industry. Blair and Brown bought them off with tax credits and extra money for schools & hospitals, but in practice promoted a low-skill, low-wage service economy that acted as a magnet for immigration. The result is that unscrupulous right-wing politicians have been able to get these peoples' votes by promising hard Brexit and immigration controls, as if the immigrants were the cause of low wages rather than vice-versa.

It's all nonsense, of course; we can't stop immigration or our economy and public services will collapse, but that's a problem for the next election. It will do just fine as a strategy for this one.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen

We don'y have a Le Pen here. Neither do we have a Macron, who is a centre left politician of the type Labour should be putting up.
Yes, the Left should only be allowed a leader that the Right have approved.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The trouble on the left started brewing during the Blair years; many working-class Labour voters wanted most of all to get back to the days of "proper jobs" in proper, manufacturing industry. Blair and Brown bought them off with tax credits and extra money for schools & hospitals, but in practice promoted a low-skill, low-wage service economy that acted as a magnet for immigration. The result is that unscrupulous right-wing politicians have been able to get these peoples' votes by promising hard Brexit and immigration controls, as if the immigrants were the cause of low wages rather than vice-versa.

It's all nonsense, of course; we can't stop immigration or our economy and public services will collapse, but that's a problem for the next election. It will do just fine as a strategy for this one.

Or you could argue that Blair and Brown went down the path of neo-liberalism, and this led to stuff like PFI and privatization. Of course, part of Labour reacted to this, calling it Tory-lite.

I don't really know the next step. Do we get another right-wing Labour leader who is devoted to neo-liberalism? This is the Macron position, I think, and probably it will enrage more people eventually.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The world has never actually worked in the way it does in the Ye Olde Days fantasies. Even if it had, it couldn't now. The problem is that people think it did, so politicians gain a lot of traction pretending they want to go back.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The world has never actually worked in the way it does in the Ye Olde Days fantasies. Even if it had, it couldn't now. The problem is that people think it did, so politicians gain a lot of traction pretending they want to go back.

It seems very strong in England, but I suppose also in the US. The irony is that conservative politics (as in Tory and Labour), don't actually conserve at all; they tend to smash everything up. But then there is the fantasy that you can escape via protectionism. This often leads to trade war and real war.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.

Rather Corbyn than May. I haven't seen a scrap of evidence that May is more competent than Corbyn. This is the woman who appointed Boris '350 million for the NHS' Johnson to Foreign Secretary.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
You think May is incompetent? Are you speaking of Theresa "We didn't actually want Brexit because we knew it would be bad, but now that we have it let's double down and make it worse" May, Theresa "We've the lesser amount of power in these negotiations, so let's piss of those who do because this will make it better" May?
You think she is incompetent?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, the Left should only be allowed a leader that the Right have approved.

No quite, but surely they should put up a candidate who has some hope of getting elected!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Surely, Mrs May's appeal is partly because of her mediocrity and dimness. The English don't want dazzling intellects, or moral leaders.

If you happen to be very bright, as Wilson was, you have to conceal it, and hide behind a mask of middle-class sobriety. But May fits the bill, vicar's daughter, endless bumbling, sound bites straight off the match box, U-turns by the gallon. We looked in the mirror and saw our image.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Anyone had a look at the distribution (big picture, failed to win Ukip votes and failed to get turnout out).

I'm getting the impression there's delusion* and culpability on both wings on the labour party (not to mention that the Tories are good at exploiting the country for it's benefit-e.g. the double election at public expense to successfully dull turnout, but that's their job).

*note the papers haven't exactly been supporting the center right these last 7 years (except against the left/center). I don't think that will be the magic bullet they think. And the message of last years coup timing was actively damaging (and talks of purging, don't help).
While the left of course, can't do it alone.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I think that the big picture of British politics at the moment is that the Right is all lined up behind Theresa May, while the Left is fighting like a sack of ferrets: Labour left, Labour moderates, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, all united in fraternal detestation of each others' guts. Just heard Caroline Lucas opining that the progressive parties must find a way to work together.

Yeah, right. Wishes, horses, beggars.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen

We don'y have a Le Pen here. Neither do we have a Macron, who is a centre left politician of the type Labour should be putting up.
If you think Macron is any form of left you must be so far to the right you can't be seen with a telescope.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
If you think Macron is any form of left you must be so far to the right you can't be seen with a telescope.

So why is he the political child of failed President Hollande?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Macron will continue the hollowing out of French society, which globalization is causing. The neo-liberals tend to enrage both the working class and the middle class, as jobs disappear, social services decline, and the rich stuff their gains into off-shore accounts. Not that I have a solution to this - does anyone?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't a "card", it's the truth. Black woman makes a mistake and everyone piles on.

I'm not convinced. From years of watching the BBC "This Week", on which she was a regular commentator, I've long held the view that Abbott is - shall we say? - not the most able of politicians, and that the media wish to bring that out. Is it sexist or racist? I don't think so. Is it personal? Yes, it probably is.
And Diane Abbott's done another interview:

Interviewer (ITN): Do you know the number of net losses so far for Labour?

Diane Abbott: At the time of us doing this interview I think the net losses are about 50.

Interviewer: There are actually 125 net losses so far.

Diane Abbott: Well the last time I looked we had net losses of 100 but obviously this is a moving picture.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
If you think Macron is any form of left you must be so far to the right you can't be seen with a telescope.

So why is he the political child of failed President Hollande?
That's a "when did you stop beating your wife" question if ever I saw one.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes but

There is no yes but. You're either a thieving Tory, a deluded part of the 75% who will benefit nothing at all from a Tory government or some other kind of lame-arsed idiot who is into voting against his own interests.

Which is it?

The adage that the right looks for converts the left looks for traitors is hardly a truth universally acknowledged but in this particular instance it seems bang on.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And Diane Abbott's done another interview:

Yeah, the left (my preferred side, in politics) face a massive defeat in this election and Diane Abbott isn't helping.

Having seen a police station and a GP surgery close in my area, I do not have any hope now for the hospitals which are threatened with closure, or the local library (also threatened with closure), or the services which are threatened by massive cuts to the local council's funding.

I think it will get even worse for people on the left after the election. Labour's right will blame the left, comparing Corbyn's defeat to Blair's victories. Labour's left will blame the right for attacking Corbyn so that he had to spend his time as leader defending himself against them, not attacking the bad choices of the Conservative Government.

[tongue in cheek] Sometimes I wish life in the 21st century was as positive and optimistic as Blade Runner made it appear. Sure, we're governed by rich individuals and unaccountable mega-corporations, but at least in Blade Runner there were off-world colonies which you could leave for, the only downside being a small risk of being killed by rampaging replicants. [/tongue in cheek]

[ 07. May 2017, 07:14: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, our surgery, police station, post office, library, have closed, and this is in London. I am just hoping that May does not butcher the welfare state any more. Hopefully, she retains enough one-nation Tory mindset, against the headbangers. Damn, it's the hope that is awful.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Given the number of people who have just voted for Tory councillors/mayors, it's not credible that a substantial number of them also complain about lack of bin collection, pot holes in the road, and umpteen other local services below par. Which makes you wonder why they vote for local politicians who are likely to continue cutting those services. And, come June are also likely to vote for MPs who will do the same to nationally funded services. Turkeys, here's Christmas. Vote now!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Politics isn't rational like that. It's often based on hope, wish-fulfilment, fantasy, image.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Politics isn't rational like that. It's often based on hope, wish-fulfilment, fantasy, image.

What about my hope that a significant portion of he electorate will become rational?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Politics isn't rational like that. It's often based on hope, wish-fulfilment, fantasy, image.

What about my hope that a significant portion of he electorate will become rational?
That's just barmy.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Politics isn't rational like that. It's often based on hope, wish-fulfilment, fantasy, image.

What about my hope that a significant portion of he electorate will become rational?
That's just barmy.
qv 23rd June 2016.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This David Schneider tweet says it all - let's just slam Diane Abbott and ignore all the other issues.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Given the number of people who have just voted for Tory councillors/mayors, it's not credible that a substantial number of them also complain about lack of bin collection, pot holes in the road, and umpteen other local services below par. Which makes you wonder why they vote for local politicians who are likely to continue cutting those services. And, come June are also likely to vote for MPs who will do the same to nationally funded services. Turkeys, here's Christmas. Vote now!

Presumably, people who vote Tory at a local level favour lower levels of Council Tax which doesn't preclude them whinging about the poorer services which follow from that. That said, I once moved from a Council with a left wing authority, with strong views on the environment, where the recycling services were rubbish to a safe Tory seat where they were pretty good. It didn't induce me to vote Tory but I could see why my neighbours did.

Actually, the thing that has always struck me as being in some way significant is the way that councillors get the old heave-ho when their party is doing poorly in the polls. I get that, say, Mr Major was unpopular after the ERM debacle and that people don't like Mr Corbyn. But I don't see how it follows that I should ditch Councillor Bloggs who sorted out the grit boxes or Councillor Jones who got that grant for the Library just because his party leader in Westminster is a bit of a prat. (or for that matter we should re-elect Councillor Graft just because his party leader is registering Blair97 or May17 levels of popularity).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably, people who vote Tory at a local level favour lower levels of Council Tax which doesn't preclude them whinging about the poorer services which follow from that.

So the problem with this kind of statement is that it treats "services" as a monolithic block. You either want lots of "services" in which case you want high taxes to pay for them, or you want a lower level of "service" and lower taxes.

I don't think anybody thinks like that. A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator". It's not that they want lower services across the board - it's that there are some things they want, and other things they don't want at all.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Given the number of people who have just voted for Tory councillors/mayors, it's not credible that a substantial number of them also complain about lack of bin collection, pot holes in the road, and umpteen other local services below par. Which makes you wonder why they vote for local politicians who are likely to continue cutting those services. And, come June are also likely to vote for MPs who will do the same to nationally funded services. Turkeys, here's Christmas. Vote now!

Well, we've had cuts to all those things in Liverpool, which is not far from being a Labour one-party state at the moment. And that's not because Labour are rubbish, but because Liverpool lost something like 50% of its central government funding.

It makes you wonder why people bother with local elections. Oh wait, they don't.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Given the number of people who have just voted for Tory councillors/mayors, it's not credible that a substantial number of them also complain about lack of bin collection, pot holes in the road, and umpteen other local services below par. Which makes you wonder why they vote for local politicians who are likely to continue cutting those services. And, come June are also likely to vote for MPs who will do the same to nationally funded services. Turkeys, here's Christmas. Vote now!

I think some of it is hoping that they'll be 'rewarded for their loyalty' by central government. A kind of Quisling, or prisoners dilemma approach.
I just read the announcement for the Cambridge candidate, and he's explicitly going on the having the 'ear of central government'.

[ 07. May 2017, 19:03: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I don't think anybody thinks like that. A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator". It's not that they want lower services across the board - it's that there are some things they want, and other things they don't want at all.

And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I don't think anybody thinks like that. A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator". It's not that they want lower services across the board - it's that there are some things they want, and other things they don't want at all.

And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.
Most everyone hates and fears what they do not understand, Tories do not have a monopoly on that.
The key factor is simplicity. The Conservative messages are simpler to present than the liberal ones. They are not simpler in practice, but blame the foreigners requires no nuance. Lower taxes help everyone is farcical, but plain.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator".

IME a lot of these type of people are prone to underestimating the complexity of delivering services, and overestimating the cost of services that they don't personally benefit from.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I don't think anybody thinks like that. A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator". It's not that they want lower services across the board - it's that there are some things they want, and other things they don't want at all.

And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.

I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.

"Fear", "hate", and "don't want to purchase" are not synonyms.

Not understanding is certainly a big thing - you often find people who see no value in X, until they meet the people who use whatever X is, and discover that X is really quite cheap, but vitally important to those people.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.

I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
And that's why you lose...
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.

I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
And that's why you lose...
Quite. It's kind of difficult to win elections if one doesn't pander to the electorate at least a bit.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And that's why you lose...

More particularly it's why I'm not a politician.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.

I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
And that's why you lose...
Quite. It's kind of difficult to win elections if one doesn't pander to the electorate at least a bit.
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.

Thing is, the tories clearly know their target audience is prone to stupidity, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to push this sort of absurd nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/07/tories-intensify-attacks-brussels-saying-supports-labour
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.

Thing is, the tories clearly know their target audience is prone to stupidity, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to push this sort of absurd nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/07/tories-intensify-attacks-brussels-saying-supports-labour

If it is, as you say, 'absurd nonsense', why do you think details of the meeting (which portrayed Mrs May negatively) were leaked by the Commission?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.

On one hand, yes. You're absolutely right. The Left need to up their game and tell a better story - seek converts.

One the other, it's extraordinarily difficult to reason with people out of a position like the the Banker's Biscuit without first telling them they've fallen for a scam. No one likes being told they're stupid (or racist).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it is, as you say, 'absurd nonsense', why do you think details of the meeting (which portrayed Mrs May negatively) were leaked by the Commission?

Because the meeting occurred in the time frame within which it was leaked and they have an interest in keeping their own electorate abreast of developments that are likely to affect their domestic economy. Things aren't always primarily about the UK.

Besides, in terms of Theresa May being portrayed negatively; she had control over the timing of the meeting, she also had control over her conduct in her meeting, and crucially none of the things reported as said in that meeting differed substantially from the public positions taken by May, Davis et al. nor the tone they have taken.

[The BBC interviewed Le Pen twice, and didn't interview Macron at all - was that also an attempt to influence the French election? They'd presumably argue that they were trying to inform the British public].
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The key factor is simplicity. The Conservative messages are simpler to present than the liberal ones.

Monetarism is simple and intuitive?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.

On one hand, yes. You're absolutely right. The Left need to up their game and tell a better story - seek converts.

One the other, it's extraordinarily difficult to reason with people out of a position like the the Banker's Biscuit without first telling them they've fallen for a scam. No one likes being told they're stupid (or racist).

Although ISTM the sort of people who don't like immigrants don't like bankers much either.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Although ISTM the sort of people who don't like immigrants don't like bankers much either.

And yet they absolutely adore stock brokers so long as they share their views.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Although ISTM the sort of people who don't like immigrants don't like bankers much either.

Which is exactly the point. Classic misdirection: "Hate them, not us - they're the problem."
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The key factor is simplicity. The Conservative messages are simpler to present than the liberal ones.

Monetarism is simple and intuitive?
It was passed-off as being similar to household economics, eg balancing your income and expenditure. It was something else the centre & left failed to oppose and defeat, because it is stuffed full of falsehoods.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The analogy between national and household budgets isn't even applied consistently. The whole point of austerity is to reduce national debt (which it's failing to do), but households are encouraged to borrow to get what they want. Or, at least borrow to invest in the household - improve the insulation, replace the boiler or windows to cut heating costs; get a car so that the "breadwinner" can find a better job outwith the immediate area; etc. I'm not seeing any sign of our government investing to reduce ongoing costs (with long term savings) or helping people into work or better paid jobs (and hence boost tax incomes, and general economic performance).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The analogy between national and household budgets isn't even applied consistently. The whole point of austerity is to reduce national debt

Yes, and the history of austerity is that it has never done this anyway (at least not in isolation - there are a few cases of tiny economies which have implemented austerity but then recovered because of expansive spending by their major trading partner).
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Monetarism is not austerity. Monetarism is the idea that you can manage the economy by mucking about with the money supply. Hence quantitative easing.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.

I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
Brecht got there first:

quote:
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?


 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The key factor is simplicity. The Conservative messages are simpler to present than the liberal ones.

Monetarism is simple and intuitive?
It was passed-off as being similar to household economics, eg balancing your income and expenditure. It was something else the centre & left failed to oppose and defeat, because it is stuffed full of falsehoods.
And it is a simple concept. To illustrate why it is false, one must use reality, which is much more complex. And doesn't provide a simple solution.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Again: austerity is indeed simple, but it is not monetarism.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Again: austerity is indeed simple, but it is not monetarism.

I think - though an actual economist is free to correct me - that in monetarist terms the governments strategy of "on the one hand QE and on the other hand austerity" was fairly incoherent as it amounted to taking money out of the economy by cutting public spending and then printing money to replace it.

For most people monetarism is a boo-word because it was the basis of the governments economic policy in the early '80s which got a grip on inflation at the cost of eye-watering levels of unemployment. But when the government joined the ERM at the end of the decade the main critics of the policy were monetarists who pointed out that keeping interest rates high in the middle of a recession was folly. So a consistent monetarist would have been opposed to the later Tory recession but in favour of the former!

Which does, kinda sorta, make lilBuddha's point as this sort of thing hardly fits snugly onto the side of a bus.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Monetarism is not austerity. Monetarism is the idea that you can manage the economy by mucking about with the money supply. Hence quantitative easing.

I don't think that the Tory economic policies are monetarist. When was the last time the government instructed the Bank of England to release more cash into the economy (or, indeed, drag more cash out of the economy)?

Actually, although they'll use impressive sounding words to create an impression that their policies follow a defined economic theory, the reality is different. The Tory Party economic policy is basically a mix of make-it-up-as-we-go-ism with what-we-can-con-punters-to-vote-for-ism. With the sad truth being that a large number of punters have swallowed the whole mirage hook, line and sinker and actually believe that a) the Tories are the only party with economic competance and b) that the solid economic theories underpinning other parties policy is bunkum.

The Tories know how to play the game of politics.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
My wife reckons that austerity is loved by many English people, as it pleases their fierce Protestant conscience, which demands punishment for unknown crimes. I couldn't possibly comment.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Preferably, of course, punishment of someone down the road, who is poor and/or disabled and/or ill and/or old. Why should they swan about watching Sky, drinking, and smoking their lungs to death?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Preferably, of course, punishment of someone down the road, who is poor and/or disabled and/or ill and/or old. Why should they swan about watching Sky, drinking, and smoking their lungs to death?

Yep, construction of the 2017 version of the welfare queen.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Preferably, of course, punishment of someone down the road, who is poor and/or disabled and/or ill and/or old. Why should they swan about watching Sky, drinking, and smoking their lungs to death?

Yep, construction of the 2017 version of the welfare queen.
I suppose (optimistically speaking), that this goes in cycles. We have punish the poor for about 15-20 years, then the pendulum swings back to some sort of compassion, OK for a bit, then hit the bastards again. The thing is, the rich need all the money.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Actually, although they'll use impressive sounding words to create an impression that their policies follow a defined economic theory, the reality is different. The Tory Party economic policy is basically a mix of make-it-up-as-we-go-ism with what-we-can-con-punters-to-vote-for-ism. With the sad truth being that a large number of punters have swallowed the whole mirage hook, line and sinker and actually believe that a) the Tories are the only party with economic competance and b) that the solid economic theories underpinning other parties policy is bunkum.
If you have any evidence that the other parties policies are based on solid economic theories I would be delighted to see it. Edmund Dell wrote a book on the Chancellors of the Exchequer from Dalton to Lamont and pretty much concluded that the only ones who knew what they were doing were Gaitskell, Thorneycroft, Jenkins, Healey and Howe. If he had done a second edition he would have probably added Clarke and Darling to the list and made regretful noises about Brown.

Economic policy since the war has generally been a mixture of economic theory, making it up on the hoof and generously dishing out bribes to favoured sectors of the electorate and swing voters appear to vote for it out of a mixture of how they are doing, how they think things are going generally, and whether they think the other lot are much cop.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My wife reckons that austerity is loved by many English people, as it pleases their fierce Protestant conscience, which demands punishment for unknown crimes. I couldn't possibly comment.

There could be something in that. Take all those period dramas and current fascination with ancestors who were smitten with proper grinding poverty, it is as if some sort of yearning is going on.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
"So they established the rule, that all poor people should have the alternative (for they would compel nobody, not they,) of being starved by a gradual process in the house, or by a quick one out of it."

Oliver Twist.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Which does, kinda sorta, make lilBuddha's point as this sort of thing hardly fits snugly onto the side of a bus.

To be honest I'm kind of losing sight of what my original point was, which suggests I might not have one ...

I think what I was getting at was that within the spectrum of conservative thought, there are plenty of ideas that are complex and counter-intuitive but not wrong or stupid, but conservatives seem more willing than progressives to dumb their ideas down to something plausible but simplistic.

(I do think some of Mr Corbyn's awkward interviews occur when he feels he is being manipulated by the interviewer into giving an easy answer which is also wrong. An abler politician would probably avoid the trap more adroitly but in fairness I do agree with his supporters that it is somewhat questionable that this is one of the skills we require of our leaders.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Wrong and stupid are subjective. The Conservatives proposing the ideas are doing so for their benefit. The conservatives voting for those ideas, are often doing so against their benefit.
Lowering taxes is an example of this.

Many progressive ideas are less simple, like social services help society in general, even those who do not use them.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wrong and stupid are subjective. The Conservatives proposing the ideas are doing so for their benefit. The conservatives voting for those ideas, are often doing so against their benefit.
Lowering taxes is an example of this.

Many progressive ideas are less simple, like social services help society in general, even those who do not use them.

These policies may be wrong and stupid, but if you appeal to selfishness and greed, you can do wonders.

Over the years, the Conservatives have done this better than Labour. Darn it, they have managed to make virtues of selfishness and greed!
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...by rebranding them as 'self-reliance' and 'thrift'.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...by rebranding them as 'self-reliance' and 'thrift'.

Don't forget the rebranding of "not giving a shit" as "personal responsibility"
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
In fairness to the electorate most of us can discern pretty much whether the government's policies are helping or hurting us and ours and it is more difficult to work out whether or not they are good for the country as a whole. This cuts both ways. My driving instructor in the 1990s lost his small business during the ERM recession. He was, by background and instinct, a working class Tory but he was solid for Mr Blair on the grounds that Mr Major had mucked up his life. Interestingly he voted for Ken as Mayor the first time round. I'm guessing that he voted for Boris as Mayor went back to the Tories in 2010 or, at a pinch, 2015 and will almost certainly vote for Mrs May this time around. Most people on this thread, it appears, would regard him as selfish and unprincipled. I think of him as someone who voted according to rational self-interest and could, therefore, potentially be persuaded to defect back to Labour given a decent leader and prospectus. Of course, the question is complicated by intangibles, he could have become old and bitter and ended up as a supporter of UKIP or his kid could have married an EU national and driven him into the arms of Tim Farron. But in any event it seems eccentric to assume that the electorate should cast their votes out of left-wing idealism and get cross when they think that their well being and that of their family are significant factors in their decision making.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
These policies may be wrong and stupid, but if you appeal to selfishness and greed, you can do wonders.

I think there is something in this - but the more powerful influence is the kind of kind of resentment built up by 'retail grievance' - the kind of media that makes money by selling anger as a consumer product.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But in any event it seems eccentric to assume that the electorate should cast their votes out of left-wing idealism and get cross when they think that their well being and that of their family are significant factors in their decision making.

I don't mind people voting out of rational self-interest that much, unless they're wealthy enough that they're just trying to rig the game so they can rack up their own score. What I mind is when people are really lousy at estimating the effect of voting a particular way on them and their family and end up voting for parties that will screw them.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Even worse, IMO, are the large number of people who don't appear to even try and think things through and just believe what the papers tell them is in their best interest.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Just curious, with the election of Macron and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea) would you say the tide might be turning against the Torie party, or is your election just too soon to have any real impact?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Ask us again on June 9th.

It's not looking good at the moment - the right-wing tabloids are still foaming at the mouth.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea)

Scary thought, if she does engage dialog with the North. Could that paradoxically mean the US can take an very aggressive line on the basis that NK can only really retaliate against the South leaving it either not attacking, or (more likely) attacking and doing the damage to both that the talks were meant to avoid.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just curious, with the election of Macron and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea) would you say the tide might be turning against the Torie party, or is your election just too soon to have any real impact?

I don't think an election in South Korea is going to change British voters' minds about the ineptness of Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Does this, on an Australian (left-wing) news site, ring true about Corybn and Labour?

quote:
The Labour policies themselves are decent enough: a million new skilled jobs, and a National Investment Bank, a “rights at work” program, a million new homes to be built in five years, reconstructing education as the National Education Service, with similar universality and equality of treatment, renationalising railways (by not renewing lapsing tenders) and increasing ‘social democratic control’ of the energy system.

All good stuff, and a program that links transformation of production with consumption and services, as any modern social democratic program should. Trouble is, Corbyn can’t stick to the script. Whenever a microphone is stuck in front of him, he talks exclusively of the poor and dispossessed, those in terrible housing, people on zero-hour contracts, etc, etc. “Take a walk around the streets of our big cities at night” to see the poverty, he suggested in a BBC interview, sounding like he was on the edge of bursting into Streets of London: “so how can you tell me you’re lonely, and say for you that the sun don’t shine …” etc, etc.

This reflex act is a measure of Corbyn’s decency, the fact that he’s really a 19th-century radical liberal in modern garb, passionately concerned with the genuinely poor and exploited. Corbyn would like to be heading an army of such people, banging their fists bloody on the gates of power.
...

Yet even such new voters, if they could be turned out, would not be enough. Corbyn must know, at some level, that he has to offer something to the broad middle classes.

Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even worse, IMO, are the large number of people who don't appear to even try and think things through and just believe what the papers tell them is in their best interest.

Your social circle must be very different from mine. I don't know anyone who says "my payslip says I'm getting less money than I was for the same amount of work but the Daily Mail says that Theresa May is going to stick it to Brussels so I'm going with the Daily Mail".

I think that there is a tendency to assume that correlation is the same thing as causation. There are more immigrants and my daughter didn't get into the school I wanted because not enough places so we should reduce immigration but that cuts both ways. The Sun has never backed the losing side in an election therefore Mr Murdoch determines the election result.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
Both. There's been no serious, attempt to take voters off the Tories, which is the only way to win an election for the Labour Party and his ratings have been poor from the outset.

2015 Post-mortem: In 2010 the Labour Party elected it's weakest leader since Neil Kinnock who failed to build an election winning coalition.
Labour Party: Hold my beer.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Does this, on an Australian (left-wing) news site, ring true about Corybn and Labour?genuinely poor and exploited. Corbyn would like to be heading an army of such people, banging their fists bloody on the gates of power.

Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?

I don't know if you can remember Arthur Calwell, Leader of the ALP between 1960-67. Calwell was recognised as a decent and honourable man, who had served his party faithfully for decades. He had obtained ministerial experience in a very busy portfolio. At the election the year after he became leader, the ALP scored a majority of the popular vote and took a major swing of seats in its favour. In all his long period as an MP Calwell remained loyal to his party - from memory he never disobeyed a whip. In other words, he showed many qualities of loyalty and experience sadly lacking in Corbyn.

Yet the swing in 1961 was not really in his favour but was one against the Menzies government, and was not built on in subsequent elections. Why? A large part of the answer is that he remained rooted in the past, in fighting again the battles of the depression years, was not seen as offering answers to the problems of the 60s.

Corbyn is similarly seen as being a return to the days of Michael Foot, but unable to show the party loyalty or suitable executive experience Foot brought to the position; indeed his present campaign has built on the reputation he gained on his election as party leader of having great difficulty in running his own office. In addition, he's unable to shake off past associations now seen as very indiscreet and ill-chosen. Basically, he seems largely unelectable.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I don't know anyone who says "my payslip says I'm getting less money than I was for the same amount of work but the Daily Mail says that Theresa May is going to stick it to Brussels so I'm going with the Daily Mail".

Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours). Though the Tories do play the "Labour will raise tax/NI and you'll take home less" card every election - even when Labour have committed to not raising taxes (at least, not for the vast majority of people). What people probably notice is that their pay doesn't seme to go quite as far as it used to - their rents, utilities, groceries etc all cost more. Which is where the Tories play their "the economy is safe in our hands" and "Labour policies will result in more inflation" cards, which again are not entirely truthful when looked at objectively. And, the majority of our papers just trot out the Tory line as though it's objective truth and people believe it. The same could be said about the verifiably false statements in the media about immigration (immigrants take our jobs, houses, welch off the NHS etc), even British history (Britain was a great trading nation ... well, not exactly - we traded a lot but the money was made through manufacturing turning imported raw materials into exportable products, and so the "great trading nation" can only really be recreated if we also invest in manufacturing).

I would say it's not just Mail readers. I equally dispair of Guardian readers who just soak up what they read without assessing it.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.

The BBCs Iain Watson reported that most labour MPs with majorities of less than 5,000 are in trouble. I don't know how he knows that of course...

In the meantime, every time I see Tim Farron having an argument in the street with someone, I like him more.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The BBCs Iain Watson reported that most labour MPs with majorities of less than 5,000 are in trouble. I don't know how he knows that of course...

Presumably that's where the swingometer currently sits.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).

I have (thanks to a NI rise last year). I'm presumably (hopefully!) not alone?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Wasn't the last NI rise in 2011/12? Which would have been under a (marginally moderated by the LibDems) Conservative government. The same party warning us of tax rises if people vote in a Labour government.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).

I have (thanks to a NI rise last year). I'm presumably (hopefully!) not alone?
Same here. NI rise due to changes to state pension and rises in occupational pension contributions.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.

All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.

You mean like Kezia Dugdale? Neil Kinnock?

In what way is the Labour Party's electoral system corrupt, exactly? Because it doesn't produce the results you want?

I think whether it's appropriate for Corbyn to resign or not is going to depend not just on win/lose but on whether there is progress in vote share since 2015. Two years is a very short time to turn defeat into victory but if the party goes backwards then it would be reasonable to expect Corbyn to resign. However, if it becomes clear that the PLP plan an undemocratic stitch-up like when they imposed Gordon Brown on the party and the country (or when the tories imposed Theresa May) then all bets are off.

[ 10. May 2017, 19:25: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.

Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.

[ 10. May 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
]Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).

Mrs Tor lost £5k pa a few years back, due to a 'take massive paycut or to be transferred into a pool of people we're threatening to make redundant' deal, which we just couldn't risk.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Wasn't the last NI rise in 2011/12? Which would have been under a (marginally moderated by the LibDems) Conservative government. The same party warning us of tax rises if people vote in a Labour government.

It depends. If you were paying "Contracted out" NICs then your contribution would have risen from April 2016 to pay for the enhanced state pension. That affects almost all of the public sector plus many others with an employment based pension scheme.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.

Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.

If defeat is due to personal attacks rather than policies why should he even consider standing down? The Tory campaign is, yet again, an entirely personal one. If Labour were to attack Mrs May in this way and this extent they would be accused of sexism.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.

All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
Historically, that's just wrong. Churchill hung on after 1945 (with Labour majority 145!), Attlee after 1951, Gaitskell after 1959 (when the Tories won a majority of 100!), Heath in 1966 (when Labour won a majority of 98!), Wilson in 1970, Heath in 1974, Heath in 1974 (at which point he was defenestrated by Mrs T.) and Kinnock in 1987 (when the Conservatives won a majority of 102!).

Things changed in 1992 - Kinnock went, then Major in 1997, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after the defenestration of IDS), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and Cameron in 2016.

Theoretically Corbyn could suffer a thumping defeat in this election and subsequently see himself and his party returned to power - Churchill and Heath came back after thumping defeats and Labour under Wilson after a thumping defeat of his predecessor - it's not unlikely that Gaitskell would have won in 1964. If Mrs Thatcher had been a bit more conciliatory about Europe and done something to mitigate the poll tax she might have contested the 1992 election against Neil Kinnock and lost narrowly. If Gordon Brown had called a snap election in 2008 he would have probably won and no-one would have expected Cameron to stand down.

At least, that is the sort of line I expect the Labour Hard Left to take. I have some sympathy inasmuch that if in some parallel universe Corbyn had fallen under a bus and the Labour Party had inexplicably elected someone decent and then been beaten in a snap election lots of people would be calling for Mr or Ms. Decent to be given a second chance.

However we are not talking about Mr or Ms Decent, we are talking about Jeremy Corbyn a man who bears some responsibility for harming our country and a great deal of responsibility for harming one of the great parties of the state. His election was a disaster, his career as Leader of the Opposition has been a disaster and to quote George Bernard Shaw I care not whether or not he goes quickly or quickly goes, but go he must! If he doesn't Labour MPs must consider the En Marche! option or resign themselves to irrelevance.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.

Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.

If defeat is due to personal attacks rather than policies why should he even consider standing down? The Tory campaign is, yet again, an entirely personal one. If Labour were to attack Mrs May in this way and this extent they would be accused of sexism.
All election campaigns consist of both policies and personal attacks. Hague was "weak, weak, weak", Major was a hopeless duffer, Howard was a combination of Dracula and Svengali. By your logic no defeated party leader need resign after a General Election.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Callan, timing does matter. The longer Corbyn is there, the longer before Labour can regroup and the the Tories have even longer to dismantle reforms dating back to Attlee's government.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, some Labour people are now touting Macron as the ideal, a guy who worships at the shrine of globalization, which has hollowed out industrial parts of France, just as it has here. I suppose he has the fantasy, like Blair, that you can make it work for ordinary people. Good luck.

I don't think the English will ever elect left-wing politicians, except in an emergency. So what does the left do? They can rage impotently on the sidelines, or join Labour, I guess. Or in Scotland, SNP.

It's all very repetitive also. I remember Callaghan decrying Keynes at the Labour conference. What can one do?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


I don't think the English will ever elect left-wing politicians, except in an emergency. So what does the left do? They can rage impotently on the sidelines, or join Labour, I guess. Or in Scotland, SNP.

It's all very repetitive also. I remember Callaghan decrying Keynes at the Labour conference. What can one do?

The main problem is that the right have very successfully redefined politics, so that what was left-of-centre Social Democracy thirty or forty years ago, and adopted by the "One Nation" group of the Conservative party, is now regarded as neo-Communism.

It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.

I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, the Attlee measures after the war would today rank as pure Bolshevism. The description of Corbyn as hard left says the same thing, that basic Labour ideas are now supposed to be shocking and not to be countenanced.

Now, one left-wing view of that is that the ruling class can no longer afford such reforms (as Attlee's), and has to pull back cash from the poor, to finance the rich. I suppose you can also cite greed.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Callan, timing does matter. The longer Corbyn is there, the longer before Labour can regroup and the the Tories have even longer to dismantle reforms dating back to Attlee's government.
See my last paragraph.

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.
On the other hand the experiment in untrammelled Tory hegemony does not appear to be particularly successful in delivering left-wing policies. It didn't happen on the previous occasion that it was tried in the 1980s, or, indeed, in the 1930s. If you want left wing policies you need left wing politicians who are sufficiently centrist and competent to deliver left-wing parliamentary majorities.

I think the other issue is how you deliver what you define as left-wing policies. There is a perfectly respectable left-wing tradition, from Keynes to Kendall, which says the market where possible, the state where necessary. To take but one example, our local comprehensive school was turned into an academy, a few years ago, run by a corporation which also runs a number of highly prestigious C of E private schools. This has, in time, driven up standards thereby improving the life chances of the children concerned and contributing to the objective of "providing free quality education for all". On one level that's right-wing. An academy! Run by people who run private schools! On the other hand it brings about left-wing outcomes for the children who attend it. The trouble with the left is that it is full of Kantians who would rather fail under the Categorial Imperative of "Did This Happen In Clem Attlee's Day?" rather than consequentialists who, to borrow a phrase, holds to "what matters is what works".
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.

I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".

If nationalisation of the railways isn't left-wing then what is? I also think its a bad idea that will lead to service reductions and decreased investment.

Scrapping tuition fees is a hideous idea that will lead to a reduction in the number of university places available, reduced facilities and support for the students who do manage to get a place, and job losses across the HE sector. It may well also lead to a reduction in the number of students from less privileged backgrounds.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.

I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".

If nationalisation of the railways isn't left-wing then what is? I also think its a bad idea that will lead to service reductions and decreased investment.

If railway nationalisation is left-wing then I'm sure Margaret Thatcher's government would have privatised it. As it was some parts of the railway group, such as Sealink ferries and BR Engineering were sold off but it was 1994 before the railways themselves were privatised, and look at the fiasco of subsidised franchises, costing more than BR ever did and charging higher fares, plus a cowboy outfit (Railtrack) running the infrastructure, which had to be returned to the public sector in 2001.
quote:


Scrapping tuition fees is a hideous idea that will lead to a reduction in the number of university places available, reduced facilities and support for the students who do manage to get a place, and job losses across the HE sector. It may well also lead to a reduction in the number of students from less privileged backgrounds.

To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I've never really understood why left-wing people cling to railway re-nationalisation as some kind of totem. My understanding is that most railway journeys are taken in south-east England. Why is making the bus drivers of Blyth subsidise the commutes of the stockbrokers of Surrey considered progresssive or socialist?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
I went to University before tuition fees and it didn't appear to be socially exclusive in any way shape or form. People appeared to have got in on academic merit, including my housemate whose father couldn't read.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
Some modern universities are little more than tech or commercial colleges that (somehow) have become able to award degrees in association with senior institutions. Even the polytechnics were more than that as they were centres of excellence in some field or other. I'm pretty sure parents will be happy to see their teenagers do apprenticeships that could lead to the professions (as used to be the case with law, engineering, architecture and could well be with IT nowadays) but the problem would be that there would have to be the prospects of jobs at the end of it - oh, but that's a problem with degree level education, where graduates end up in all sorts of low-paid jobs.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable.
I work in HE, somewhere in the lower divisions along with the Torquay and Southend Uniteds of the sector.

Not all lecturers behave this way, but in general and from a management perspective new entrants are effectively cash-cards to be inserted into the hole-in-the-wall of government funding and public cash extracted. Woe betide the department who loses a cash card before its 3 (or 4) year expiry date comes up.

Kids are being f*cked over twice when another institution offers them an MSc to redeem their dismal undergrad experience...only to shovel more of the same at them.

It's a real Arthur Daley experience out there. I don't know how it might be sorted, but parts of the sector are not doing much very noble at the moment. Closing bits of it or (gasp) turning us back into Polytecs supporting local industry (where that's still a thing) makes sense to me.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
As I understand from the leaks, Labour are not advocating wholesale nationalisation of energy, but plan to create a state-owned energy company to operate in the existing market and influence the other players towards more customer-centred behaviour (e.g. start actually competing with each other, stop incessant take-overs and price gouging). Anyone care to explain why that isn't a very sensible idea?

Nationalising everything in sight on principle would be extreme. Using the government's influence to improve things for consumers is just sensible. The Tory plan for price caps probably amounts to more state interference in the market and is anyway a policy ripped off from "Red Ed" Milliband. If someone in the PLP has leaked this to try and damage Corbyn, then I feel nothing but contempt for them and sympathy for Corbyn.

Totally unimpressed with the Tory "campaign" so far, it's basically just Theresa May telling carefully selected groups of journos how strong and stable she is. At least Corbyn & co are getting out there and mixing it up a bit, OK they've dropped few clangers, but someone who isn't making mistakes probably isn't doing anything.

The British electorate have shown very clearly in recent years that they hate being taken for granted. As long as the Tories continue with this lacklustre and complacent excuse for a campaign, there is a real danger of that feeling taking hold. I'm not sure Labour would be the main beneficiaries, but the protest voters might go back to UKIP or LibDem/Green/Nats.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, the Tory campaign is dullsville, although I expect it will rev up soon. So much exposure of Kim Jong May is stultifying in the extreme, although I suppose Tory voters are having orgasms. But she was allowed to simper on the One Show, (more orgasms).

I am enjoying seeing Corbyn, as he actually looks alive, and not a cartoon in the Daily Mail. He is miles better at campaigning than May, but I guess that will count for little.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
I went to University before tuition fees and it didn't appear to be socially exclusive in any way shape or form. People appeared to have got in on academic merit, including my housemate whose father couldn't read.
I attended university during the same period. There were undoubtedly a number of bright kids from comprehensives there. I should know, I was one of them. But there were a number of bright kids from my comprehensive who could have made the cut and, for whatever reason, didn't. And certainly public life appears to me filled with people whose posh schooling allowed them to parlay a meagre talent into some kind of eminence.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
If I were running a private school, expanding my market into clever (= good outcome stats) poor boys at someone else's expense sounds like a great move. Well, that was me, too.

At the one I went to, thick rich boys thought to be potentially draining on the outcome stats were offered the 24-hour supervision afforded by (otherwise-somewhat-depleted, rather-expensive-to-be-at) boarding houses. Trebles all round!
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.

Surely if you'd gone posh skool, you'd refer to it as the foot of your stairs.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
in general and from a management perspective new entrants are effectively cash-cards to be inserted into the hole-in-the-wall of government funding and public cash extracted. Woe betide the department who loses a cash card before its 3 (or 4) year expiry date comes up.

I spent some time in a university that would probably be ranked solidly in the first division. The attitude of management was no different. Departments were ordered to keep failing students by any means possible, which generally meant that they stuck around enjoying the student lifestyle until some point in the middle of the final year, where they would finally face up to the crashing realization that having done no work at all for the last three or four years was not adequate preparation for their final exams, and they would drop out (either formally or informally).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.

Surely if you'd gone posh skool, you'd refer to it as the foot of your stairs.
Well, posh boys' schools, bottoms, fat boys in the gym, naked boys in the pool, teachers come to watch, so it goes.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I've never really understood why left-wing people cling to railway re-nationalisation as some kind of totem. My understanding is that most railway journeys are taken in south-east England. Why is making the bus drivers of Blyth subsidise the commutes of the stockbrokers of Surrey considered progresssive or socialist?

Trains in the south-east have - generally - a slightly higher average utilisation than trains elsewhere. Additionally, rationalisation has seen lines close - which further skews the picture towards the south-east. Lastly, it is not just the rich who use the trains - the large majority of people who use the trains are not well paid stockbrokers - even in the square mile, for every well paid stockbroker there are plenty of cleaners, waiting staff etc using the trains.

So you are taking a skewed picture, imposing an unrepresentative figure and then claiming that a point has been made.

A more extensive network and lower fares, would see a greater diversity of people using the trains.

[ 11. May 2017, 18:15: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
More particularly, nationalisation =/= subsidy. Presumably we'll continue to subsidise railways as we do now (and we do a lot) but the difference will be that the profits as well as the costs will be nationalised.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.

Alan, it's not about the policies. Those of us interested in politics find it difficult to understand just how very different we are from the majority who just don't follow politics.

To take a simple example, Theresa May has been repeating “strong and stable leadership” at every opportunity, ad nauseam. Yet only 15% of a representative sample recognised it. It needs to be understood- most people know very little about policies.

There is a great deal of research about how people make up their mind to vote, and it's which party they usually identify with, what their views of the leaders are and which they think would most competently handle the major issues. Policies are only a limited part of the mix.

If Labour continues to follow a left wing narrative, what will not happen is that The People will be won over by the brilliance of the arguments in favour of radical policies. We now know they won't buy that.

Labour will be marginalised further, and the Tories free to do what they like in the absence of a credible opposition.

We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.

For the reasons you've given, I don't think being in the centre is that important.
A left-wing Labour party that presented itself as competent and offered a strong economic narrative could I think win elections even if it weren't coming from the centre. Especially if it were able to tie that in to a narrative of a Tory government that was dithering about such as the present one.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Yep, you can't have it both ways. Either policy isn't important or you can only win from the centre. Not both. Is Corbyn the ideal front man? No. Is there anyone better available? No. Time to get on with selling the best we've got.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Dafyd:
quote:
A left-wing Labour party that presented itself as competent and offered a strong economic narrative could I think win elections...
And this is the problem, right here. Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act - an ostensibly well-balanced story about one of his campaign visits yesterday was illustrated with a picture taken from near ground-level showing his hand reaching out for the camera. He was probably just waving his hands around as he spoke, like most politicians do, but the subtext was clearly 'Labour is out to grab your money'.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Well-played, BBC.

Meanwhile the Tories are busy decreeing that there are 'boy jobs and girl jobs' and trying to take us back to the 1950s, and somehow this is all perfectly OK. Strong and Stable Leadership, is there honey still for tea, and all that.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

Meanwhile the Tories are busy decreeing that there are 'boy jobs and girl jobs' and trying to take us back to the 1950s, and somehow this is all perfectly OK. Strong and Stable Leadership, is there honey still for tea, and all that.

Let's look at he 1950's then: could a woman be prime minister then? Heck very few ministers were and for that matter had been women.

As for "Strong and stable" leaders we had, amongst others, Churchill and Eden. Churchill suffered a stroke in 1953 but struggled on for two more years to be succeeded by Sir Anthony Eden, best known for the Suez misadventure which broke his health.

I suppose honey was off ration by then, if you could find any.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
This Election is one of the stranger ones in recent history and the only talking point for most is how few seats Corbyn will be left with on the morning of June 9th.
A media that is based entrepreneurial principles, (or lack of principles), is not going to go easy on Labour Party moved to the Left. Electoral reverse psychology is the only thing that can save Labour from humiliation.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.

I think this is a myth - for complicated reasons. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that at the moment 'everyone knows' that you win elections from the centre and at some point the newspapers may or may not present you as the centre (which at the moment is done by presenting your opponent as of the radical left).

So a plan to cap energy prices is portrayed as the coming of the Bolsheviks one moment, but then passed on without much comment the next.

In general, a lot of the current manifesto policies are popular with the majority of people:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/poll-shows-people-love-labours-10404216

Does that make them more or less centre? At the same time there are a number of policies pushed by the Tories (fox hunting) that are fairly unpopular with the country at large but are more directed at getting out the vote of a particular niche.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, in oldskool language, the centre is a floating signifier. In the old joke, if you want to get to X, I wouldn't start from here.

There are plenty of current examples - the energy price cap being the most obvious, labelled Marxist under Miliband by the right-wing.

Another one is nationalization - seen as hard left by some, but of course, Bush did it after the crash.

Even the term 'hard left' floats around, meaning pretty much nothing at all.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I missed out the bit where chris stiles talks about being presented as the centre. This is the crux of it, isn't it? The centre is a kind of self-presentation or other-presentation, but then most political labels are. The interesting thing is which position you are in, when you make that pronouncement.

Metacommunication is a killer, eh?

[ 12. May 2017, 11:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.

For the reasons you've given, I don't think being in the centre is that important.

I think that (in most cases) elections are won by winning the centre. That doesn't mean you need to be in the centre to win. Most parties have a relatively small core vote who will support them come hell or high water. Almost by definition that is insufficient to win outright (otherwise that party would always win), There is a very much larger group of people who will potentially switch alliegence, and to win an election you need to convince enough of them to vote for you. This group sit between the extremes presented by different parties (neither particularly left or right, up or down), so it's not unreasonable to call them the centre - and they're the people who need to be won over.

But, by definition, the centre is a very fluid place - they like some policies from one party, and othre policies from another. It's a place where identity is difficult to form, and even harder to maintain. It's a place to follow the crowd, not somewhere that's a natural place to lead from. What the centre seems to respond to are calls from the edges "come over this way" rather than the edges moving into the centre. The challenge isn't to be in the centre to win, it's to a) not be so far from the centre that the "come over here" is unheard and b) to present your position as somewhere stable from which you can lead people forward, coupled with c) that you are strong enough to do that leading.

There's a real possibility that Jeremy Corbyn is now too far from that centre ground for his message to make it through. Which wouldn't be a problem if those closer to the centre faithfully relayed the message - but they aren't doing that. And, added to which Corbyn doesn't come across as a strong leader, and the divisions in his party make the ground he stands on shaky. All the while, the far right is repeating the mantra "strong and stable", highlighting the relatively weak and shaky opposition.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
FWIW my opinion (and that is all it is) is that people rarely switch from party to party. Generally a change in a party's fortune is caused by people voting for a party having not voted for them (or anyone else) in the previous election, or staying at home instead of voting. I agree there are exceptions, such as UKIP and the rise of the LibDem vote but the former was a single-issue campaign while the latter was a sustained rise over more than 25 years.

If Labour loses many seats it will probably be caused by their supporters staying at home and Tory voters turning out when they might not have done before. OTOH, the best hope the LibDems have is that some who deserted them in 2015 (especially former students who were very angry) now returning having realised that they moderated the nastier Tory policies in the coalition years.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Our area is made up of constituencys whereby if the Lib-Dems do well it will be at the Tory expense. That is reverse situation of how they stole it in 2015.
If voters return to the Lib-dems in droves it will only be an exercise in tit for tat. The real crunch is what proportion of Labour voters switch to Tory. Having said that the one thing May is keen to avoid is casual Toryites staying at home because they think the whole thing is a done deal.

The really big question mark is the mood of the Electorate. Is it still simmering post-Referendum or has, as DC hopes, the poison been drawn?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The problem is not with Labour's manifesto. It is that the ordinary voter looks at the public image of Jeremy Corbyn (and more particularly those around him) and do not much care for what they see.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I've seen much of the Labour Party manifesto before: it is an expanded version of the manifesto that appeared in our school mock election of 1970 - and that didn't win either.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
In other news, the Tory battle bus is the resprayed remain campaign bus - we know this because people have compared photos of the license plates. Is this irony ?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Question: why do the Lib Dems appear to be tanking? Polls showing 8-11%, only a little ahead of UKIP.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Question: why do the Lib Dems appear to be tanking? Polls showing 8-11%, only a little ahead of UKIP.

c50% of the population are tribally Labour or Tory and would vote for a pigs bladder on a stick if it sported a rosette of the appropriate colour.

Among the rest the Lib Dems were tainted by coalition, particularly tuition fees, Mr Farron doesn't get much airtime and hasn't really cut through with the public.

Also Mrs May and Brexit are currently popular. This will undoubtedly change at some point but not before June 8.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The problem is not with Labour's manifesto. It is that the ordinary voter looks at the public image of Jeremy Corbyn (and more particularly those around him) and do not much care for what they see.

A very prescient comment. The new head of Corbyn's election campaign, Andrew Murray, left the Communist Party only last December to join Labour. While at the Communist Party he declared 'solidarity' with 'People's Korea'.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
So in the meantime, the official version of the Labour party manifesto is out, featuring most of what was in the leaked version with the addition of also re-nationalising the water industry.


About as far away as you can get from most of the policies of the current government I think.

So apart from scrapping tuition fees, they also plan to have maintenance grants as well. Which I must say would be a winner for me if it they did that on day one, as we are about to pack a second child off to uni. Even if they took their time and only ditched fees in second and subsequent years it would save us a lot. But maybe it would be a cut off not affecting any existing students. Although I seem to recall in 2015 election Milliband had it as a day one policy.

[Edit for atrocious spelling error]

[ 16. May 2017, 14:55: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
You have to say that Mrs May has carried out a brilliant coup by absorbing UKIP voters, I don't know how many. She doesn't need to worry about Labour voters voting Tory, it's in the bag.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
How bad is it when the only joy one can derive from May is that at least she is not Trump?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The Tories really have played a blinder since 2010. Took Clegg in then pinched most of the Lib-dem seats of him 5 years later. Called a Referendum to appease a shift to the extreme right, now brings the waywards back safely into the Fold.

Mrs may appears to be walking on air and enjoying one of the sweetest extended honeymoons ever granted to an unelected Leader. One has to wonder what can possibly go wrong for her and her Party in the years ahead.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
And the Scottish Ref too. (and in the EU referendum they've dashed nearly managed to leave Labour holding the bomb as well as Ukip)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
One has to wonder what can possibly go wrong for her and her Party in the years ahead.

Tons can go wrong for the UK - loss of labour supply through idiotic immigration controls, loss of global influence through Brexit, ongoing austerity strangling the economy, trade barriers further strangling the economy, people in desperate need going without the welfare they need ... But, the Tories will be OK for at least another 5 years. And, that's all that counts, winning this round of the game.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Oh, but what damage will be done in those 5 years. Coupled with the 4 more years in the US, the world will not be in a better place at the end of this.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Looking at the party manifestos, I am struck by that fact that:

1. Multiple major parties pledge to end homelessness. Here in the US, where, I grant, homelessness was not a large phenomenon until large numbers of mentally ill people were deinstitutionalized in the 1960s without the transitional housing and care they were promised, such a promise could never be kept, and would probably not be made by a conservative party anyway.

2. The Tory manifesto wants compulsory ID for voting. In the US, such laws are strongly opposed by the left because many people here do not have government issued ID, and they tend to be disproportionately people of color and/or poor. Is any of this the case in the UK?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act...

I'm wondering about this. I am reading about it, in left leaning sources admittedly. Has it been the case for a while that major news sources are pro Conservative, as some of ours are here, or is it primarily because of the person of Corbyn?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act...

I'm wondering about this. I am reading about it, in left leaning sources admittedly. Has it been the case for a while that major news sources are pro Conservative, as some of ours are here, or is it primarily because of the person of Corbyn?
An overwhelming majority of the print media is pro-tory, and the broadcast media takes its clues about what is news and where the "centre" is from the papers. There are some non-tory papers, but their sympathies lie more with the lib dems (Guardian, Independent). The only Labour papers are The Mirror (and they're on the anti-Corbyn side of the Labour divide) and The Morning Star (which until the collapse of the USSR was indirectly funded by the soviet embassy).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. The Tory manifesto wants compulsory ID for voting. In the US, such laws are strongly opposed by the left because many people here do not have government issued ID, and they tend to be disproportionately people of color and/or poor. Is any of this the case in the UK?

ID cards have been a point of debate in politics for many years. They were actually introduced by the Labour government in 2005, but implementation had not been completed before the whole scheme was scrapped under the Cameron government in 2010. The interesting thing is it's yet another reversal of the position of David Cameron (who opposed ID cards) and picking up what had been Labour policy.

In regard to voting, the arguments are basically the same as in the US. There's no evidence of voter fraud that ID cards would reduce, and the cost of obtaining ID cards would penalise the poor (though I'm not sure there's as strong a correlation with voting preference as in the US). I think it's just there because the Tories have repeatedly rejected compulsory ID cards to counter crimes associated with identity theft, but a former Home Secretary values them for national security - and, knows that the public do not want to live in a police state under constant surveillance and letting the security services check everyone's ID.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
 
Posted by mikey mikey (# 17383) on :
 
Satire it may be, and arguably blasphemous, but this really puts things into perspective. Vicars daughter, indeed.

https://twitter.com/Tory__Jesus
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mikey mikey:
Satire it may be, and arguably blasphemous, but this really puts things into perspective. Vicars daughter, indeed.

https://twitter.com/Tory__Jesus

I don't think that is technically blasphemous. What the pictures and captions are doing is marking out how much of the rhetoric politicians use is incompatible with what Jesus actually said.

The left, though, is not as immune from a similar exercise as it fondly imagines.
 
Posted by mikey mikey (# 17383) on :
 
I agree. The "progressive Left" is fiercly anti-religious in varying degrees, depending on whether they might be open to accusations of racism/religious intolerance. Having said that, the Christian Right in America probably do more to damage the reputation of Christians than the so-called "politically correct".
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The left, though, is not as immune from a similar exercise as it fondly imagines.

Sure, though they aren't as tied to notions of God and Country in the same way that the Right is.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.

This was actually introduced in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there are historic concerns about voter suppression and, to avoid this, after their pilot scheme, they introduced a free ID card which one could acquire if one was not in possession of a driving licence or a passport. The Government have made no mention of any such thing which leads me to suspect, they are not bothered if it decreases turnout.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...which is odd really, as quite a lot of older people don't have passports and at least some of them (my mother-in-law, for example) don't have driving licences either. Evidently the Conservative Party thinks it is worth disenfranchising these people to prevent poor people from voting.

Perhaps library cards could be added to the list of acceptable IDs. Of course, that will only help urban voters who are within easy reach of a library; rural libraries are few and far between after all the cutbacks.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.

What are the "existing forms of ID"? Driver's licenses? Others? Would a voter ID law require that the ID have a photo? That it come from the government (national? local?) What about people who have no such ID (as Alan Cresswell asserts) and who would have trouble getting one (due to poverty, frailty, etc.)? In the US we have some situations where people cannot get ID without a birth certificate, and because hospitals have burned down or lost records or simply because some poor elderly people born at home I would imagine never got one in the first place, getting a birth certificate may be impossible. Sometimes (in rural parts of the US) the nearest government office where someone could get an ID (assuming one can afford to) is at least a day's journey each way from where someone lives, and the homebound, caregivers of others, and others often cannot make the journey easily, if at all.

I would support voter ID laws if the government had the burden of finding all eligible voters, verifying their identity, and providing them with IDs free of charge. Absent this, I do not support such laws, especially when (here in the US), voter fraud is so rare that such laws are hardly justified.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I don't have access to Pickles' report to hand, but I think he suggested a flexible system that included utility bills. Before the election was called there were plans to pilot the proposals.

While voter fraud is rare, there have been some high-profile cases recently (and there might be more given the difficulties in bringing an electoral fraud case to court). As a resident of an area hit by widespread voter fraud, I find myself very sympathetic to these proposals.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.

What are the "existing forms of ID"? Driver's licenses? Others? Would a voter ID law require that the ID have a photo?
At present, in the UK, you do not need ID to vote. Prior to an election everyone registered to vote will receive a voting card (which has your name and address, plus information about where your voting station is and how to cast your vote) - mine arrived on Wednesday. If you have this, you just turn up and hand it over and everything is fine. If not you can still vote, but may be asked to prove your name and address (but, probably won't be).

There are plenty of other times when you would need ID - to open a bank account, or access an account where you have lost your card, for example. Then if you have official photo id (passport, photo drivers license, or the one for under-25s to prove they're over 18 and can buy alcohol) that is much simpler. But, they you will often also need to produce other documents anyway - utility bills (which prove you live where you claim) for example. Given that not every one has an official photo id there must be forms of proof of identity that can be used in those circumstances.

As a form of electoral fraud impersonating another registered voter must be a very small occurance. Most polling stations are quiet enough that someone appearing several times to cast multiple votes would probably be noticed, eventually. So, the number of votes that could be cast fraudulently would be small. More prone to fraud, I expect, would be postal ballots (if these could be intercepted before they reach the genuine voter) or proxy votes (and, again, if someone turned up at a polling station claiming to be authorised to vote on behalf of more than 2 or 3 people there would be scrutiny of id, I'd hope).

I can see value in everyone have official photo-id, providing that id is secure and free. But, voter identification and voter fraud doesn't rank very high on the list of reasons why you should have it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't have access to Pickles' report to hand, but I think he suggested a flexible system that included utility bills. Before the election was called there were plans to pilot the proposals.

He didn't call for anything particular beyond 'photographic and other forms of ID' (both of which are problematic). The only part of the UK where photographic ID is a requirement for voting is NI, and the cost of the Electoral ID Card is bourne by the government over there.

quote:

While voter fraud is rare, there have been some high-profile cases recently (and there might be more given the difficulties in bringing an electoral fraud case to court). As a resident of an area hit by widespread voter fraud, I find myself very sympathetic to these proposals.

The incidence of voter fraud is a fraction of a percent (certainly lower than the incidence of illegitimate spending on elections). The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).

Well, quite. Having fake voters turn up in person and vote is a slow and difficult method of electoral fraud. It's far easier to just control a big stack of postal votes.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The incidence of voter fraud is a fraction of a percent (certainly lower than the incidence of illegitimate spending on elections). The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).

The incidence of voter fraud is very low as far as we know, but then low levels of conviction don't necessarily mean that there is low levels of fraud - because it is only normally noticed when some idiot literally attempts to stuff a ballot.

One might imagine it isn't so hard to vote twice in a British General Election. Some people are legitimately on the electoral register twice in different places, it is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility that they'd vote postal in one constituency and in person in another.

I have no idea how one would even go about checking whether this was happening unless one had a suspicion about a particular individual.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The incidence of voter fraud is very low as far as we know, but then low levels of conviction don't necessarily mean that there is low levels of fraud

Yes, so perhaps it would be prudent to get an idea of the scale of the problem before deciding to spend money solving it [the Electoral Commission best estimates are in a miniscule fraction of 1% and presumably they are best placed to know at present]

In the event I suspect what Callan says upthread is correct, it's a dogwhistle at best and they have no idea how they'd implement it or any plans to put anything like the NI system in place.

So at the very best this gets tacked onto some kind of national ID card. The likely worst - given the current economic forecasts following a hard brexit - it will be the Pickles proposal. It costs a not insignificant amount of money for a passport, not everyone drives, and not everyone is on a utility bill.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Just got our leaflet from the Tories.
I don't think they knew what was in the manifesto as there's literally nothing. Just a brief description of each area in the constituency.

(I think he's taking lessons from the Nicolai Capathia school of presentation.)
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
My Tory leaflet is a postcard sized double-sided glossy. The front has 9 photos of the sitting MP posing in various situations locally (well known for only being seen for photo opportunities in the run up to elections), five along the top half, central strap line on blue, four photos underneath. One has her wearing a food bank tabard.

The other side mentions her 20 years in office and has 7 bullet points, see below. The smaller right hand column is topped with a photo of MP with Theresa May and contact information. Apparently the Tories are for:

It doesn't help that this is a solid Tory constituency, has been for a very long time. Any vote against is a protest vote.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
So what they basically stand for is rainbow statements then ...
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Apparently the Tories are for:



Did any politician or party ever describe themselves as weak and unstable?

Did any ever campaign for a less fair society where success is based on nepotism?

If someone put this sort of stuff on a job application I would consider it generic guff, and write "NOT EVIDENCED" through it in red.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I wondered quite how those bullet points could be justified

 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I'm sure the tories do want everyone to play by the same rules - the rules may be more favourable to the rich but they're still the same rules for everyone e.g. if you're too poor to look after yourself you'll need to go into the workhouse as God intended. Same rule for everyone.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sure the tories do want everyone to play by the same rules - the rules may be more favourable to the rich but they're still the same rules for everyone e.g. if you're too poor to look after yourself you'll need to go into the workhouse as God intended. Same rule for everyone.

Or as Anatole France put it, the majesty of the law, which impartially forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.

Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:

1. I don't want a big bossy state.

2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Makepiece
quote:
So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet.
[Killing me]

This would be the same Emily Thornberry I've heard on newscasts this morning tying herself in knots over Trident - officially Labour policy to keep, and renew, but ET now saying there is to be a review, notwithstanding the LP has already had a review which decided to keep Trident and which has informed the relevant bit of the Manifesto. On being told that Nia Griffith said she was wrong, ET held to the same line about a review.

Obviously Ms Thornberry is more than competent to be Foreign Secretary with such a fine grasp of the nuances of policy, etc.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
I did use the word 'remotely'
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.

Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:

1. I don't want a big bossy state.

2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.

You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Obviously Ms Thornberry is more than competent to be Foreign Secretary with such a fine grasp of the nuances of policy, etc.

Someone seems to have forgotten that Boris Johnson is our current Foreign Secretary.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty: Ms Thornberry's tweet commenting on a house with English flags and a white van (remember that) show just how unpleasant Lady Nugee can be.

Other than that, she fits into the Shadow Cabinet a treat, following the lead of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott in not using the nearest 'sink comp' for her children but sending them 14 miles north to something rather better. And her protests about the lack of affordable housing ring rather hollow, bearing in mind she owns three properties herself (she lives in Barnsbury, one of north London's least affordable districts).
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.

Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:

1. I don't want a big bossy state.

2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.

You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
In response to your points:

1. "the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy"

That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?


2. "wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children"

As above setting a policy on the minimum number of children would be akin to communist China and is not a policy that I would remotely support however as above I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?

3. "wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care"

Again baffled. Of what are you speaking?

4. "wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc."

is this a Conservative policy? I'd be grateful for a reference if it is as I've been unable to find one.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by l'Organist:

quote:
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty:
He agreed to give a Darius Guppy the address of another journalist, so that Guppy could send a couple of goons round to duff him up. On the scale of nastiness, I think this trumps an injudicious tweet.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The plagiarising, tax-dodging, serial adulterer Johnson? No, not nasty at all.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:

That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?

Is this related to the income requirements for immigrant spouses?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.

Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:

1. I don't want a big bossy state.

2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.

You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
In response to your points:

1. "the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy"

That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?


2. "wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children"

As above setting a policy on the minimum number of children would be akin to communist China and is not a policy that I would remotely support however as above I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?

3. "wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care"

Again baffled. Of what are you speaking?

4. "wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc."

is this a Conservative policy? I'd be grateful for a reference if it is as I've been unable to find one.

1. The increase in income needed to bring a non-British spouse to the UK.
2. The ending of child benefit for a third and subsequent child.
3. The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house.
4. ID requirements for voters

This is all in the Conservative manifesto. Number 2 strikes me as being particularly perverse. If the government wishes to discourage immigration then I would have thought that encouraging the natives to have more sprogs was desirable.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:

That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?

Is this related to the income requirements for immigrant spouses?
Yep. A friend of mine can't live in the UK with his American wife because his income isn't high enough (the fact that she is in work and can work from anywhere in the world doesn't seem to matter).
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
Callan

In response to your points:

1. "The increase in income needed to bring a non-British spouse to the UK."

I agree that restrictions on freedom of movement are an undue encroachment by the state. I disagree with the immigration tatget etc. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.


2. "The ending of child benefit for a third and subsequent child."

This clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.

3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."

Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.

4. "ID requirements for voters"

I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.

Nothing thats been said so far changes my view that the size and power of the state would grow under a Labour government. I agree that the stuff about immigration and ID is too 'statist' but I can't begin to imagine the sorts of capricious and arbitrary encroachments we would see under the present shadow cabinet if they were in government.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
If you can't begin to imagine then that rather suggests they don't exist.

Theresa May, let's recall, voted to retain Section 28. She's also the one who wants to control access to the internet. Big Sister is watching you.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Yup, the state will be smaller, the poor will be poorer, the sick will be sicker, the children will be hungrier, but that will be alright because the state will leave the people that aren't affected to manage their money themselves and feel they are alright, Jack.
Of course, that management could include giving to alleviate the hardships of those Jesus said we should care for, but when that was not done by the state, not everyone was helped. Individuals were historically very picky about who got helped. And the people who wanted to opt out of giving could do so.
As you want.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Yup, the state will be smaller, the poor will be poorer, the sick will be sicker, the children will be hungrier, but that will be alright because the state will leave the people that aren't affected to manage their money themselves and feel they are alright, Jack.
Of course, that management could include giving to alleviate the hardships of those Jesus said we should care for, but when that was not done by the state, not everyone was helped. Individuals were historically very picky about who got helped. And the people who wanted to opt out of giving could do so.
As you want.

The three main reasons why I disagree with this:

1. I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer. Look at the poverty of pretty much any communist country. The reality is that high living standards are created by society not the state. I do not believe that a bigger state will reduce poverty as I think it would lead to higher unemployment, higher inflation and slower wage growth.

2. Alot of the 'giving' that the state does is not in accordance with my values. For example I don't see why anyone should be 'given' a free abortion on the NHS. I don't see why my five year old should be 'given' sex education in the virtually compulsory eduction run by the state. Moreover alot of state giving encourages dependence instead of independence. At least if society has more scope to do the giving I can choose the values of welfare being provided. This point is weaker of course where there is a moral consensus in society.

3. Notwithstanding my dubts about the merits of high welfare I'm not suggesting that the welfare state ought to be abolished I'm simply suggesting that the state is already very large and doesn't need to get any bigger. I appreciate that it was even larger in the past but I think we've achieved a balance now where the welfare provided doesn't have the adverse economic impact that it had in the past.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you can't begin to imagine then that rather suggests they don't exist.


No it doesn't because I've observed what other countries have experienced with a big state. Take Norway's problems with its draconian child social services. The state forcibly removed five children from Romanian immigrants because they had smacked their children (the Bodnariu case). As Romanians they did not know how strict the Norwegians were on smacking (it is illegal). I know what you are thinking- the parents were probably actually abusive, but no if you look at the case properly there is no evidence of abuse. The reality is that if the state became too big here we would have looney left wingers telling us that how to parent, advocating hormone suppressants to children confused about their gender (probably suggesting that the state pay for it) and strengthening the already draconian hate speech laws.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."

Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.

4. "ID requirements for voters"

I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.


 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."

Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.

4. "ID requirements for voters"

I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.

If a state spends £5 billion on the secret police and nothing on a health service then it is smaller than a state that spends £10 billion on a health service and £10 million on internal security. if however you want to retain freedom from the state then the larger state of those two is preferable.

Just looking at the amount the state spends is a ridiculously crude measure. A state that refuses to pay child benefit to third or later children is claiming a much greater right to judge its citizens' lives than a state that doesn't discriminate even if the latter state spends more.

Requiring ID cards to vote is a much greater exertion of state power than anything in the Labour manifesto.

[ 20. May 2017, 23:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The reality is that if the state became too big here we would have looney left wingers telling us that how to parent, advocating hormone suppressants to children confused about their gender (probably suggesting that the state pay for it) and strengthening the already draconian hate speech laws.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there were over a million visits to Trussell Trust foodbanks in the last 12 months.

But poverty is something that communist states have, right? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer. Look at the poverty of pretty much any communist country. The reality is that high living standards are created by society not the state. I do not believe that a bigger state will reduce poverty as I think it would lead to higher unemployment, higher inflation and slower wage growth.

If you're trying to decide whether to grow or shrink the state within a liberal social democracy non-liberal authoritarian societies are a false reference. You can't compare apples outside a basic liberal democratic framework with oranges within such a framework.

If you compare social democratic states those with more state intervention in the economy are generally richer per capita than those that don't. Norway is richer per capita than the US. The poor in Norway are certainly better off than those in the US.
The UK enjoyed higher living standards post war after Labour expanded the size of the state than it did beforehand.
The current Conservative government have been trying to shrink the size of the state for the past seven years. The rise in living standards has slowed down or almost stopped in that time.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:

1. I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer.

Empirically the period since 2010 will prove you wrong, government spending has shrunk and the poor have got poorer (precisely because the programs that they normally benefit from have been cut).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A strange week-end in the campaign really, with Labour moving up a few points in the polls, and some Tory disquiet over the dementia tax issue.

I am guessing that Corbyn is doing better than people thought he would, and the Tory campaign is as flat as a pancake. Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

Of course, the Tories are going to win, but I suppose Corbyn is hoping for 35%, about 5% more than Brown and Miliband. You have to laaf.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

Which is very much the gist of a post appearing on Theresa May's official page on facebook, excerpts:

"If I lose just six seats I will lose this election, and Jeremy Corbyn will be sitting down to negotiate with the presidents, prime ministers and chancellors of Europe."

"The prospect of him walking through the door of Number 10, flanked by John McDonnell and Diane Abbott and propped up by the Liberal Democrat and nationalist parties, should scare us all."

Of course, if she genuinely believed this, then calling an election at this point would be both criminally stupid and a hideous waste of time.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
He might be a friend of some in the PIRA but he never actually killed anyone, unlike this government which has killed thousands through reassessment of the ability of disabled people to work.

[ 21. May 2017, 12:19: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
If she believed this, why would she call for an election at a time when there was a small chance such a person would get into power?

Answer, she doesn't and it's all a cynical ploy.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Ah, I do like your post. And I have just listened to Ken Clark on radio 4, - another person I very much like to listen to. He said, and I agree, that amounts of money above £100,000 being used for the care of a person needing long-term dementia care is right. There was a caller (on Five Live) last night with property worth a million and he thought that if he needed long-term care the Gov should pay, even when he was reminded that that would need tax-payers to pay more and have less of a chance of buying their own homes.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty: Ms Thornberry's tweet commenting on a house with English flags and a white van (remember that) show just how unpleasant Lady Nugee can be.

Other than that, she fits into the Shadow Cabinet a treat, following the lead of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott in not using the nearest 'sink comp' for her children but sending them 14 miles north to something rather better. And her protests about the lack of affordable housing ring rather hollow, bearing in mind she owns three properties herself (she lives in Barnsbury, one of north London's least affordable districts).

I feel slightly more cheerful now! I shall be listening to the Now Show this evening too.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So if you are 70, bought your house decades ago and now live on state pension + small occupational pension - and your house is now worth 350,000 - once you've burned through your 10,000 savings in 1yr, are you not going to end up living on the guaranteed minimum income for the rest of your life ? Because you'll take 25 years to reach the guaranteed 100,000 value in your house ?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
Meanwhile Fallon/Assad, Johnson/King Salman, May/President Xi.

Who are all implicated in either genocide or ethnic cleansing.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
It doesn't, or at least not in the sense implied. By the logic used to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, you could just as easily accuse Ian Paisley, or indeed Blair or Thatcher.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Corbyn is having a much better campaign than Mrs May, isn't he? Every time I see him, he looks energized, in contact with people, articulate, and enjoying himself. Mrs May looks like a zombie, utters routine phrases, and then she starts gurning, and I have to look away.

I don't think this means that Labour will win. I wonder if right wing Labourites are hoping that Labour sinks in the polls again?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I agree that Corbyn is just beginning to acquire that underdog status, an enigma. Meanwhile his contender is definitely lumbered with something of a caretaker PM look. He is also starting to intrigue some folk with the chant of things not having to be the way they are, or indeed continuing the way they are.

If the Electorate is still in that strange mood of seeking something radical then something equally strange may yet happen come Polling Day.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
You may also consider that the Tories have a serving councillor in Croydon who used to be an active IRA member.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
It doesn't, or at least not in the sense implied. By the logic used to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, you could just as easily accuse Ian Paisley, or indeed Blair or Thatcher.
No, I disagree. Paisley, Blair and Thatcher may indeed have engaged with Sinn Fein/IRA and indeed sometimes compromised with them, but they did so out of necessity given the roles they held to achieve specific aims (peace in Northern Ireland, good governance in the province, etc.) There's no suggestion that Paisley, Blair or Thatcher were sympathetic to the aims of the IRA. The opposite is the case with Corbyn: he had no reason to deal with the IRA and yet did, giving sympathetic statements about their cause.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
Meanwhile Fallon/Assad, Johnson/King Salman, May/President Xi.

Who all met those people in some kind of official capacity as part of the government's (or Parliament's) role in dealing with other countries. There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs. That's not the case with Jeremy Corbyn and armed Irish republicanism.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.

If the Breton Cap fits...
You may also consider that the Tories have a serving councillor in Croydon who used to be an active IRA member.
Who has, as I understand it, renounced and now deeply regrets her links with the IRA. I'm not aware that Jeremy Corbyn has apologised for his pro-IRA statements/actions.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs.

Certainly not sympathetic enough with their regimes' victims to stop selling them weapons or taking their money. Or allowing them to buy UK infrastructure. Or calling them 'friends' and 'valued trading partners'.

Or are you okay with all of that? Because otherwise your objections to Comrade Corbyn's past associations are a touch hypocritical.

[ 21. May 2017, 20:57: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs.

Given that they have each offered those regimes material support, such distinctions are splitting hairs.

Then there is Liam Fox who doesn't understand the difference between state secrets and personal information.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
http://irishpost.co.uk/what-does-a-jeremy-corbyn-led-labour-opposition-mean-for-ireland/

I don't think support for the ideal of a united Ireland is equivalent to support for the IRA. Nor do I think Corbyn has ever supported terrorist bombing campaigns.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
There is a perfectly coherent argument that if we want to stop nasty people from being nasty, then we need to be prepared to dialogue with them and that might include standing on a platform with them.

There is also a perfectly coherent argument that standing on a platform with nasty people legitimises their nastiness and makes it easier for them to continue to be nasty, so we shouldn't do it.

What is not coherent, and shows muddled thinking at best, is to be chummy with Sinn Féin and then be finicky about sharing a platform with Mr Cameron in order to prevent Brexit.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:


What is not coherent, and shows muddled thinking at best, is to be chummy with Sinn Féin and then be finicky about sharing a platform with Mr Cameron in order to prevent Brexit.

Not really, it's a matter of tactics. In the former case Sinn Fein needed to be shown that there were peaceful ways to pursue their goals. Labour people needed a different message from tories about Brexit, and the lesson Labour rightly took from the referendum in Scotland is that singing from the same hymn sheet as the tories does no-one any good and the singer potentially mortal harm.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though now you can say anything sensible, even mildly eccentric, and there's no chance of singing from the same hymn sheet as the Tories, since the Tories are singing a song that's so bat-shit crazy.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yeah, but the Tories are expert at U-turns, so you never quite know what you're getting, as it might change in the middle of a press conference. Strong and stable - yeah, my arse.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What pisses me off, is that Labour aren't ruthless enough. The Tories are in disarray over the dementia tax, and they should be skewered again and again. But Labour will probably hold off.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It seems to me that there is a level of naivety going on here, probably due to poor policy planning and the timing of the snap election.

I think it is probably true that richer older people in the UK need to sell assets to pay for their care in older age, including their housing. Not a very fashionable or socialist-sounding idea, I know, but the alternative appears to be to bankrupt the NHS and the social care system as everyone gets older and there are less people working and paying tax.

But this announcement came at the worst possible time for the Tories and completely alienated their base.

I'm less sure about student fees - it certainly sounds like a vote-winner from Labour, although I've had conversations with serious academics who say that the Scottish "free education" model is less progressive than the English fee-based regime for the poorest students.

Given a choice of the two policies, I think I'd tax old people and provide free university education - on the basis that we need the skills in the economy to pay for the care of everyone else.

In practice I suspect that the Tory policy will only affect those who have moderate amounts of savings or assets and who haven't financially planned ahead. I'm sure many richer people are currently looking for ways to pass on their assets to their families before they get sick so that the end effect is that the state pays anyway.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I just popped in to ask, after this morning's fiasco - unheard-of u-turning on a general election manifesto policy - does anyone else think the Tories are actually trying to lose?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I just popped in to ask, after this morning's fiasco - unheard-of u-turning on a general election manifesto policy - does anyone else think the Tories are actually trying to lose?

Dunno, but at this rate it looks like we're heading for a hung parliament.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I just popped in to ask, after this morning's fiasco - unheard-of u-turning on a general election manifesto policy - does anyone else think the Tories are actually trying to lose?

It may be complacency. They had a 20 point lead in the polls, they had Corbyn tagged as a mugwump, and so on. But actually, he is quite good at campaigning with crowds, whereas May looks like a sixth former who has never been outside the vicarage.

And they seem unprepared for an election. God help us with Brexit negotiations. The lady is for turning.

I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm less sure about student fees - it certainly sounds like a vote-winner from Labour, although I've had conversations with serious academics who say that the Scottish "free education" model is less progressive than the English fee-based regime for the poorest students.

Universal benefits may look superficially less redistributive than means-tested benefits, but I think they're more progressive overall. There are several advantages to universal benefits. They give everyone a stake in the benefit. They mean that the benefit isn't stigmatised as a sign of relative failure. You don't have any invidious lines on which someone on the wrong side of the line loses out. There's much less money and time spent administering who qualifies and ensuring nobody gets what they're not entitled to.

The NHS is not means-tested. I think it's more progressive than any means-tested health-care service.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Another point about the dementia tax U-turn, is that Mrs May is rather inept. But then so is Corbyn, so you have a choice between two ineptnesses.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Universal benefits may look superficially less redistributive than means-tested benefits, but I think they're more progressive overall. There are several advantages to universal benefits. They give everyone a stake in the benefit. They mean that the benefit isn't stigmatised as a sign of relative failure. You don't have any invidious lines on which someone on the wrong side of the line loses out. There's much less money and time spent administering who qualifies and ensuring nobody gets what they're not entitled to.

As far as I understood the argument, the issue is to do with the availability of living-cost grants - on the basis that the tuition fee part makes no difference whilst a student - and that the living-cost grants in Scotland were not progressive.

They seemed to be arguing that in Scotland the SNP make a big deal out of the student fee thing but were making little effort to get those from poorer backgrounds to university.

quote:
The NHS is not means-tested. I think it's more progressive than any means-tested health-care service.
I think it is a bit different to a health system in this respect: in a properly working economy, those who have higher qualifications should be earning more than those who don't. And so, it can be argued, a tax system that pays for university education is charging poor workers who never get a chance to go to university to put the privileged into jobs that they'd never have a chance to access.

Yes, it is also true that the NHS is charging the healthy to pay for the sick, but there is a much lower correlation between expensive healthcare and earnings.

I think it is reasonable to ask those who benefit from university education to pay for it, I just think that turning that obligation into a personal financial debt is the completely wrong way to do it. And incredibly unfair.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I think it is a bit different to a health system in this respect: in a properly working economy, those who have higher qualifications should be earning more than those who don't. And so, it can be argued, a tax system that pays for university education is charging poor workers who never get a chance to go to university to put the privileged into jobs that they'd never have a chance to access.

On the other hand, a number of jobs in things like the care sector, both require a university level education and don't particularly pay much. Funding education out of properly progressive taxation would stop paying for university fees being a subsidy that the poor pay to the rich.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm hearing people actually talking about the possibility of Labour winning. I doubt it, but still, it's interesting to watch the Tory clusterfuck and ensuing panic.

Bloody hell, is this how they're going to handle Brexit negotiations? Help. We're in trouble.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Bloody hell, is this how they're going to handle Brexit negotiations? Help. We're in trouble.

I suspect that they'll manufacture an excuse to walk away - they are already trialling this line in the media.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But presumably, they'll walk away and then walk back.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm hearing people actually talking about the possibility of Labour winning. I doubt it, but still, it's interesting to watch the Tory clusterfuck and ensuing panic.

Loads of election campaigns (all of them?) have a bit of a mid-campaign wobble. This is the Tory one.

In some ways, it's quite well timed. Postal votes are going out and, with such a large poll lead, there was always the danger of complacency amongst Tory voters. A narrowing of the polls should help ensure they go out to vote to bury Labour.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Bloody hell, is this how they're going to handle Brexit negotiations? Help. We're in trouble.

I suspect that they'll manufacture an excuse to walk away - they are already trialling this line in the media.
Though presumably not walk away in the sensible direction (leave things as they are until we figure out what the hell we want).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm hearing people actually talking about the possibility of Labour winning. I doubt it, but still, it's interesting to watch the Tory clusterfuck and ensuing panic.

Bloody hell, is this how they're going to handle Brexit negotiations? Help. We're in trouble.

I doubt very much that the Labour Party will win. However, the opposition, the EU negotiating team and members of her own party will have noted that she makes policy on the fly and gets rattled easily, when found out, and pretty much everyone will have noted that the claim that the whole thing was put about by Jeremy Corbyn was on the level of "the dog ate my homework" style of excuses. She can get away with this now, with the country in a seizure of nationalist lunacy and Catweazle as the Leader of the Opposition. When people start noticing the disparity between their pay rise and the rise in prices at the supermarket and with competent politicians harrying her about her policies, not so much. We complained about Blair and Thatcher but at least they had election wins and serious achievements under their belts before they went off their rocker.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
I'm mystified by the whole thing about trust tonight. Apparently, May wants to fight the election on the basis of who do you trust!? When one party leader is virtually the textbook definition of consistent in his views, and she flip-flops virtually constantly, and hopes no-one notices. Corbyn may be weak (in TV bully pulpit persona, certainly) but he's not untrustworthy when it comes to his word. Wholly consistent. She isn't. I won't be voting for either of their parties (Tory safe seat, Lib Dems in 2nd but a LONG way behind) but it's an odd way to fight an election, on something you're not known for.

[ 22. May 2017, 19:03: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
However, the opposition, the EU negotiating team and members of her own party will have noted that she makes policy on the fly and gets rattled easily

A couple of commentaries on her have noted her colleagues complaints that she tends to dither (and then stick to her guns despite evidence to the contrary). In that vein the past year could be seen as procrastination on the level that would make a student supposed to be revising proud.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I'm mystified by the whole thing about trust tonight. Apparently, May wants to fight the election on the basis of who do you trust!? When one party leader is virtually the textbook definition of consistent in his views, and she flip-flops virtually constantly, and hopes no-one notices. Corbyn may be weak (in TV bully pulpit persona, certainly) but he's not untrustworthy when it comes to his word. Wholly consistent. She isn't. I won't be voting for either of their parties (Tory safe seat, Lib Dems in 2nd but a LONG way behind) but it's an odd way to fight an election, on something you're not known for.

I thought that there was a law of political opposites, esp. at election times. If you feel weak and wobbly, then use the rhetoric of strong and stable. If you are always changing your mind, then go with trustworthy. You will get found out, but who cares.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?

I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.

Quite rightly.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?

I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.

Quite rightly.

So do you think they want Labour to lose?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.

Not forgetting that Trump did win, and win despite all early expectations he would lose decisively.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?

I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.

Quite rightly.

Do you mean because you think Corbyn is badly prepared to run a country and possibly doesn't really want the job? Maybe. But Theresa May is clearly equally badly prepared to run a country. At least Corbyn isn't going to U-turn at the whim of Paul Dacre, a bilious millionaire so out of touch he had to have the concept of an ATM explained to him.

[ 22. May 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?

I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.

Quite rightly.

I think it is more like the feeling the Tory establishment had when they realised that Cameron's referendum to stop the Euro-skeptics had failed. They went into that feeling they couldn't lose but just as there is a good deal of hubris around, nemesis is being dealt out in larger measure than usual.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
A couple of commentaries on her have noted her colleagues complaints that she tends to dither (and then stick to her guns despite evidence to the contrary). In that vein the past year could be seen as procrastination on the level that would make a student supposed to be revising proud.

It is easy to forget that she was hastily picked as a healing balm to to entirely unexpected Leave victory meteorite. A lot of debris is still descending from that, it might turn out that the iron lady Mk2 isn't made of the right metal.
 
Posted by Pasco (# 388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I just popped in to ask, after this morning's fiasco - unheard-of u-turning on a general election manifesto policy - does anyone else think the Tories are actually trying to lose?

There seems to be a trend i.e. in the DNA of political parties who all seem to indulge in 'U-TURNS' a.k.a. "predictive programming," so that after the election they can do another u-turn returning back to their original intensions (having previously 'alerted' their intensions that of going against popular will/well-being of the people). The Lib-Dems did it when in partnership with the Cons., Labour did the same, Cons. did it in the past and no doubt will be doing so again (on this occasion bringing the dementia tax despite the 'u-turn'). In our local area, it is a case of voting for a guy who has done things for the local area, who will be getting the (family) vote. Our local councillor is an independent (ex Labour) voted in for opposing a local 'u-turn', his colleague and himself both becoming our local councillors, one of whom is now standing at the National elections and supported by the other. Will be voting for the underdog. [Smile]

[PS: At the national level politics affects all classes including underdogs, who seem to chase (their) tail (effecting several circular u-turns), much as the Ouraboros or serpent eating its tail...euphemism for 'Freemasonic' a.k.a. powerful esoteric influences programmed towards a new world order. Ted Heath knew well in advance that the proposed Economic Community was a euphemism for a political Union, as part of a future ten region governed United Nations. Margaret Thatcher opposed it vigourously. Not many have since. We're destined for a new world order, Brexit or no Brexit]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I've been reflecting this morning how the Manchester attack is going to impact on the GE.

Without wanting to speculate or make assumptions about who or what has happened, it seems likely that the narrative of the GE campaign is going to change and that the Tories are going to gain votes.

Bollocks.


[Votive]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been reflecting this morning how the Manchester attack is going to impact on the GE.

Without wanting to speculate or make assumptions about who or what has happened, it seems likely that the narrative of the GE campaign is going to change and that the Tories are going to gain votes.

Bollocks.


[Votive]

It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it. I really really hope Corbyn and May will be able to appear together in Manchester today. Major and Blair managed it after Dunblane (although I believe they fell out over it afterwards on petty matters). Then they can do something constructive for the country today, in the way they both claim they want to.

[Votive]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's probably wrapped it up for the Tories. The links are going to be obvious, Corbyn, soft on terrorism, IRA, Hamas, Theresa May strong leader, you can practically write the headlines already.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.

Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.

I guess we'll see if anyone uses it in the GE campaign. I'd hope not, but suspect it will come up in the next few days.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.

Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.

I guess we'll see if anyone uses it in the GE campaign. I'd hope not, but suspect it will come up in the next few days.

It will be a further indicator of the cheapshot it has been for many years. Successive UK governments have supported terrorists, albeit those overseas, for as long as anyone can remember. Our support for the anti-Gaddafi groups in Libya only served to cause civil war there and strengthen Da'esh.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.

Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.

I guess we'll see if anyone uses it in the GE campaign. I'd hope not, but suspect it will come up in the next few days.

Open goal in the sense of opportunity. Security is not, to put it politely, one of Mr Corbyn's strengths. After a decent interval I expect the Conservatives to draw attention to this fact.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.

Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.

I guess we'll see if anyone uses it in the GE campaign. I'd hope not, but suspect it will come up in the next few days.

Open goal in the sense of opportunity. Security is not, to put it politely, one of Mr Corbyn's strengths. After a decent interval I expect the Conservatives to draw attention to this fact.
But this isn't new, though, is it? And reports of Corbyn's past sympathies for the IRA resurfaced earlier this week. I'm not sure how recent events would change matters since the perception about Mr Corbyn already exists and appears widespread.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.

The relevant details are whether he would support the work of the police and security services in gathering intelligence on criminal activity within the UK, of which I have seen nothing to suggest that he would be any different from any other political leader. And, whether he would seek to address underlying issues that can lead to radicalisation or other criminal activity - and, he seems to be better placed to do that than Mrs May (he's already shown a willingness to talk to people who have grievances to try and understand where they are coming from).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes indeed, and all in his favour, but the Daily Heil and the Daily Distress would not be interested in such things. Neither would the Sun, unless he had nice legs.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.

He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy and has senior shadow cabinet members who have until recently (and perhaps still do, who knows?) backed the disarmament of the police and the abolition of MI5.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
#facepalm

I guess I should have predicted that some might even take this line of attack on this thread..
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.

He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy and has senior shadow cabinet members who have until recently (and perhaps still do, who knows?) backed the disarmament of the police and the abolition of MI5.
That refers to a letter which came out of a meeting at which there were calls for MI5 and special police squads to be disbanded. John McDonnell was at the meeting but didn't see the letter, less still sign it. The Sun issued its usual half-assed correction.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I thought (but am open to correction if I'm wrong) that he was photographed holding the letter?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.

The relevant details are whether he would support the work of the police and security services in gathering intelligence on criminal activity within the UK, of which I have seen nothing to suggest that he would be any different from any other political leader. And, whether he would seek to address underlying issues that can lead to radicalisation or other criminal activity - and, he seems to be better placed to do that than Mrs May (he's already shown a willingness to talk to people who have grievances to try and understand where they are coming from).

Well, I was rather thinking of the interview where he opposed a "shoot to kill" policy with regard to terrorists. Right now I'm guessing the the public mood may have shifted from "theoretically unsympathetic" to "who's fucking side are you on?". And, whilst it may be the case in some circles that an appropriate response to a homicidal maniac letting off a bomb at a pop concert full of teenaged girls is to stress talking to the persons concerned in order to try and understand where they are coming from, many of the electorate will be thinking in terms of nicking the fuckers and locking them up. I also think that having friends from Islamic organisations which use suicide bombing as a tactic is not really a good look in an election campaign where a suicide bomber has just murdered a bunch of kids. People are wont to be judgemental about such things.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.

He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy
Which is, again, irrelevant. The number of occasions where shoot-to-kill is an issue is vanishingly small - and would not have included what happened in Manchester. If all the police at Westminster were armed then a shoot-to-kill policy might have saved one life, since those killed on the bridge were hit before any police officers could have possibly been in a position to shoot anyone. The only time it might need to be considered is in an intelligence lead pre-emptive raid on a known criminal gang, in which case that decision can be made in the planning of the raid without the need for a blanket policy (and, the police would still prefer to have suspects they can question than corpses).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought (but am open to correction if I'm wrong) that he was photographed holding the letter?

Google is your friend.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Well, I was rather thinking of the interview where he opposed a "shoot to kill" policy with regard to terrorists.

Which I just addressed in the cross-post.

quote:
And, whilst it may be the case in some circles that an appropriate response to a homicidal maniac letting off a bomb at a pop concert full of teenaged girls is to stress talking to the persons concerned in order to try and understand where they are coming from, many of the electorate will be thinking in terms of nicking the fuckers and locking them up.
Obviously when someone has committed a crime, the appropriate response is to nick 'em, give 'em a fair trial and if found guilty lock 'em up for an appropriate period of time. Which is a matter of policing, and I've not seen any suggestion that Corbyn will undermine the ability of the police to do their job - quite the opposite as he's talking about increasing the number of police (even if Ms Abbott is unclear on the costs).

My point wasn't in relation to current criminal activity. It's about how to change things so that the kids of today don't contemplate blowing themselves up at a concert in 5-10 years. It's about changing the attitude of societies to see that there is a peaceful and legal route to address their grievances. And building a desire and belief in those communities so that people inclined to do that get reported to the police before they go and start making bombs. It's about social and economic justice, so that there is reduced injustice against which a very small minority react with violence.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought (but am open to correction if I'm wrong) that he was photographed holding the letter?

There is a photograph with a letter that might be the same letter.

That isn't the same thing as campaigning to end MI5.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.

He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy and has senior shadow cabinet members who have until recently (and perhaps still do, who knows?) backed the disarmament of the police and the abolition of MI5.
On the first of those issues, however, the BBC Trust found that the BBC report by Laura Kuenssberg (on which the furore mostly turned) had presented what Corbyn had said as if it were an answer to something he had not in fact been asked, and used the answer as then presented to suggest opposition to other policies about which he had also not been asked. The BBC Trust found that the report breached the BBC's standards on accuracy, and as a result had also breached the BBC's standards on impartiality.

[Cross-posted with a number of others including Callan]

[ 23. May 2017, 15:16: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought (but am open to correction if I'm wrong) that he was photographed holding the letter?

Google is your friend.
Google also brings up the Suspect Usuals saying the opposite.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's probably wrapped it up for the Tories. The links are going to be obvious, Corbyn, soft on terrorism, IRA, Hamas, Theresa May strong leader, you can practically write the headlines already.

I am sure you are right - but I don't quite understand the logic of this argument. Although it will be painted as "Terrorist's beardy friend" vs "(Strong and) Stable Mayble", the choice will in practise be "Untried and untested leader" vs "leader when this terrible thing was planned and carried out who presided over this terrible failure of intelligence and counter-terrorism."

Of course it is hideously unfair to apportion responsibility for this abomination to the Prime Minister - but I think that we are about to watch a narrative unfold where the leader of the opposition is seen as more responsible than the PM - or at least more likely to let something like this happen again.
How could this narrative from the right-leaning media be countered?

anne
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Someone could ask Amber Rudd if she's found the necessary hashtags yet ...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's probably wrapped it up for the Tories. The links are going to be obvious, Corbyn, soft on terrorism, IRA, Hamas, Theresa May strong leader, you can practically write the headlines already.

I am sure you are right - but I don't quite understand the logic of this argument. Although it will be painted as "Terrorist's beardy friend" vs "(Strong and) Stable Mayble", the choice will in practise be "Untried and untested leader" vs "leader when this terrible thing was planned and carried out who presided over this terrible failure of intelligence and counter-terrorism."

Of course it is hideously unfair to apportion responsibility for this abomination to the Prime Minister - but I think that we are about to watch a narrative unfold where the leader of the opposition is seen as more responsible than the PM - or at least more likely to let something like this happen again.
How could this narrative from the right-leaning media be countered?

anne

It's an interesting question, and there are obviously a whole range of counter-attacks available. I would be tempted to go full tilt, and say that Mrs May has proved to be unreliable and dishonest, blah blah blah, Mrs U-turn, and so on, you can't trust her with Brexit or security.

I suspect that Corbyn will not do this, as he doesn't believe in that kind of attack. He may be right, as being so aggressive may put people off.

I don't think he will spend much time on the issue of terrorism, but he will plug away at other issues, such as NHS, education, and so on.

But Mrs May is now in full plumage, standing in Downing St, pronouncing on the Manchester bomb, and the security aspects, surely this will give her a boost? I think Corbyn has made a brave effort, but it has been aborted. (This is a guess!).

[ 23. May 2017, 22:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I guess we'd also emphasise the existing manifesto pledges to increase police numbers, maintain NATO commitments etc and point out the tories broke their pledge to maintain the size of the army and that the number of soldiers has actually dropped under their leadership.

A bigger concern I have, is how long the campaign is suspended for now that the threat level has been raised to critical. If it continues for more than a couple of days, they should probably move the polling date.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think the suspension (and the threat level) will also help Mrs May. It gets her off the hook in relation to the car crash she was going through, and she can now look dignified and regal and she can make sonorous pronouncements about security. Surely, it's a slam dunk now.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A bigger concern I have, is how long the campaign is suspended for now that the threat level has been raised to critical. If it continues for more than a couple of days, they should probably move the polling date.

Extending the suspension on campaigning, and even more so moving the polling date, would be seen as saying terrorism can disrupt our democratic system. So, it won't be a long break in campaigning and the election date won't be moved - unless something very significant happens (of the level of further attacks or a very credible immediate threat to senior politicians out campaigning or threat to polling itself).
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I agree, but if they suspend the campaign for a couple of days, then not changing the polling date is fair enough - but if it runs over the week they may need to move the polling date.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I suppose the questions are:

(a) are polling stations under threat? It seems unlikely, but on the other hand I suppose some kind of attack would have symbolic value as an attack on democracy.

(b) if they are, how do the authorities protect thousands of polling stations/counts? Last time I wandered into a GE count with a friend and sat very close to (as it happens) Nigel Farage. It doesn't require much imagination as to the damage I could have done if I was minded.

(c) if there is a real threat, is this going to be reduced by waiting?

(d) if there is no real threat, no intelligence about the poll as a target, nothing to suggest anything is going to happen - how do the authorities persuade people to keep calm and carry on?

It'll be very interesting to see what happens at large sporting events, concerts and other events this weekend. Even if there is heightened police presence, it is hard to see how this can be kept up indefinitely.

I suspect the reality is that the poll will go ahead more-or-less as before with extra security at the counts. And everyone will be hoping that nothing bad happens.
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
I remember back before the Brexit vote when May was beeing fairly feeble about her support for remain one of the arguments she did put forward was the difficulties faced if we left the EU was over sharing intelligence about such attrocities as Monday nights attack in Manchester if we were no longer in the Union. Like others I think she is more likely to get a good majority now, but will this make her re-think her Brexit stance?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
(b) if they are, how do the authorities protect thousands of polling stations/counts? Last time I wandered into a GE count with a friend and sat very close to (as it happens) Nigel Farage. It doesn't require much imagination as to the damage I could have done if I was minded. ...

If only. [Killing me]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If only. [Killing me]

I'm not sure why you find that hilarious. I despise Farage and his neo-Nazi sympathies, I could easily have practiced the "punch a Nazi" meme that night.

Fortunately for him, I'm a believer in non-violence, even against particularly vomit-worthy extreme politicians.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
I remember back before the Brexit vote when May was beeing fairly feeble about her support for remain one of the arguments she did put forward was the difficulties faced if we left the EU was over sharing intelligence about such attrocities as Monday nights attack in Manchester if we were no longer in the Union. Like others I think she is more likely to get a good majority now, but will this make her re-think her Brexit stance?

Do you think they have a stance? Well, an incoherent one, I suppose. They will cobble together some meaningless statement about cooperation.

No doubt the EU negotiators have noticed how frail May actually is, and crumbles before any obstacle. The lady is for turning.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do you think they have a stance? Well, an incoherent one, I suppose. They will cobble together some meaningless statement about cooperation.

As I posted on the other thread, the last year (by the time the new government is actually formed) could be seen as one long dither over how Brexit is actually handled.

The student who is supposed to be revising and instead decides to finally tidy their room springs to mind.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
My point wasn't in relation to current criminal activity. It's about how to change things so that the kids of today don't contemplate blowing themselves up at a concert in 5-10 years. It's about changing the attitude of societies to see that there is a peaceful and legal route to address their grievances.
There are already peaceful and legal routes to address grievances in this country. The reason that the terrorists don't use them is that they know full well that most people don't accept that the fact we don't live under a Caliphate and that women are allowed to wear what they like don't really qualify as legitimate grievances.

The thing is, Alan, that you assume that most people are like you. If people have recourse to terrorism they must be really desperate because the only occasion on which someone like you would have recourse to terrorism would be in such circumstances. You overlook the existence of people who are just plain nasty. Dealing with them requires time, and patience, and, if push comes to shove, a well placed bullet to the head. I have very little time for Mrs May and I suspect the wheels are going to come off her premiership in a way that will make the decline and fall of every Prime Minister since Harold Wilson look like a storm in a tea cup, but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.

Then you and the popular sentiment in the country are mad and driving us off a cliff. Well done.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There are already peaceful and legal routes to address grievances in this country.

Which I didn't deny. But there are groups in society who don't see those routes, or don't think those routes are open to them. What finally ended the Troubles was when, through a lot of hard work of people talking to each other, both the Loyalist and Republican communities came to see that there was a political process by which they could work out their differences. That those communities have (largely) accepted that paramilitary and terrorist activities are not a sign of loyalty to their community but disloyalty, and as such information about such activities is much more likely to be passed to the authorities because a) those activities are seen as unacceptable and b) the authorities are more trusted to act sensibly on that information (ie: without rounding up and intering people, most of whom are totally innocent, or raiding properties with a "shoot to kill" policy that results in innocent people getting shot).

The question for today is what is the analogous approach to building a similar peace in which Islamic radicalism is viewed within the Islamic community the same way paramilitaries have become seen in Ireland? IMO it certainly doesn't start by branding anyone willing to talk to radical Islamists to find common ground on which to build as a traitor to the nation, or weak on terrorism.

quote:
You overlook the existence of people who are just plain nasty.
Yes, there are, and always have been, people who are just plain nasty. Some will always be loners and almost impossible to identify and deal with before they go over the edge and commit an atrocity. Most will probably be attracted to a cause or group where their nastiness is approved of and supported - many of those who joined the Irish paramilitaries would have been in that group, they didn't really care about the cause just a chance to knee-cap people. Some would join criminal gangs and express their nastiness through loan-sharking or other protection rackets, or anything else where they can just be nasty. Addressing issues of injustice so that one (or more) of the potential causes they might align with are removed probably won't change things significantly in regard to the plain nasty, they'll simply find another cause or outlet for their nastiness.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.

Then you and the popular sentiment in the country are mad and driving us off a cliff. Well done.
Last time I looked the UK was a democracy with free and fair elections, so I'm not convinced that "anyone who disagrees with me is insane" is really a useful line to take in persuading people that they may be wrong. I'd seriously consider voting Labour, btw, if I lived in a seat where they were remotely competitive (and had an MP or candidate whose views I could respect). It's not my fault (particularly as I voted for Kendall and Bradshaw) that Labour thought it was a good idea to elect someone as leader whose views on terrorism are somewhat awry from where the UK mainstream is, and then to bleat that people were being a bit unsympathetic. This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.

I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.

Exactly. We know what a compromise with Sinn Fein looks like and, despite the bit about treating nasty people like respectable statesmen, it's something we can all sign up to. What do we discuss with people who object, on principle, to young people having a good time? There are occasions when a compromise peace is important and necessary and occasions when peace is a euphemism for surrender. I think that this falls into the latter category.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.

I've no idea. But, until someone does start talking to radical Islamists (which is more than just ISIS) there's no way to know what scope there is to talk. ISIS are a spent force, they're going backwards in Syria and Iraq and once the Caliphate is gone they will have no credibility within the radical parts of Islam. So, we need to be talking to the people who support that form of radical Islam. In particular (since this is about the UK election) those in this country. And, we need to be talking to the wider Islamic community about what it is that is fueling radicalisation and what we can do to cut off that fuel supply. Until someone starts talking there's not much to go on. And, the right wing reactionaries who would treat any Muslim, any immigrant even, as a potential enemy to be kept at arms length and under surveilance (even worse start intering them) are not helping in one bit - in fact, quite the opposit.

If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.

I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces. I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done. British governments have endorsed all sorts of weird and wonderful people including the celebrated moment when Caron Keating gave Mrs Thatcher a hard time over her insistence that moderate members of the Khmer Rouge were necessary to the Cambodian peace process but, by and large, it is considered bad form by a democratic politician to support people who are committing terrorist atrocities against one's own country. I don't like May or Corbyn but only one of them has a track record of coming over all J.C. Flannel about, nay endorsing, this kind of shit, and it isn't Mrs May.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.

I've no idea. But, until someone does start talking to radical Islamists (which is more than just ISIS) there's no way to know what scope there is to talk. ISIS are a spent force, they're going backwards in Syria and Iraq and once the Caliphate is gone they will have no credibility within the radical parts of Islam. So, we need to be talking to the people who support that form of radical Islam. In particular (since this is about the UK election) those in this country. And, we need to be talking to the wider Islamic community about what it is that is fueling radicalisation and what we can do to cut off that fuel supply. Until someone starts talking there's not much to go on. And, the right wing reactionaries who would treat any Muslim, any immigrant even, as a potential enemy to be kept at arms length and under surveilance (even worse start intering them) are not helping in one bit - in fact, quite the opposit.

If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.

The previous US approach was to negotiate with those Sunni tribes and sheikhs who were tempted to follow IS, and previously Al Qaeda. It seemed to work with the latter, as the Awakening group of Sunnis eventually drove AQ out of tribal areas.

I don't know if this is possible now with IS-leaning tribes and groups in Iraq and Syria; it may be too dangerous at the moment. But it is possible to drive a wedge into the Sunni bloc, and this would probably reduce terrorism in the West.

Something similar can be done in the West, I think. Islamism is not monolithic.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.

I'm not Alan, but I do remember that the core demand of Sinn Fein was a united Ireland. It won't happen however because Sinn Fein get fewer votes in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland. ISIS too has a political end, namely the establishment of a different kind of government in the middle east, particularly Iraq (which was left in the lurch after Saddam Hussein was deposed), Syria (all sorts of people want Assad out, and Britain & the US are equivocating as he is against ISIS) plus Libya, Yemen and who knows what others.

In short, it has political aims and it's those we ought to talk about. "We" of course means a single voice representing practically everyone else, eg, Russia, the USA, other Arab States, you name it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.

I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces. I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done. British governments have endorsed all sorts of weird and wonderful people including the celebrated moment when Caron Keating gave Mrs Thatcher a hard time over her insistence that moderate members of the Khmer Rouge were necessary to the Cambodian peace process but, by and large, it is considered bad form by a democratic politician to support people who are committing terrorist atrocities against one's own country. I don't like May or Corbyn but only one of them has a track record of coming over all J.C. Flannel about, nay endorsing, this kind of shit, and it isn't Mrs May.
If you are on about killing people you have to consider the changes to the criteria that determine whether disabled people are able to work. This may not be as dramatic and horrific as bombings and shooting but it is just as certain, and this democratically elected government has done just that.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.

Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Corbyn opposed 'this kind of shit' in Iraq, didn't he? I wonder how May voted on it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done.

Well, there is the actual material support that the US and UK governments have provided to AQ linked groups in Syria over the last few years.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.

I'm not Alan, but I do remember that the core demand of Sinn Fein was a united Ireland. It won't happen however because Sinn Fein get fewer votes in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland. ISIS too has a political end, namely the establishment of a different kind of government in the middle east, particularly Iraq
Furthermore 'Islamism' isn't some kind of monolith. To a large extent ISIS succeeded in the territory in which they formed their short lived state because of local forces (either tribal or otherwise) being willing to align with them - however temporarily - for local advantage or because they felt their own alternative was worse.

It's the same with sectarian conflicts elsewhere - even if some groups are clearly beyond the pale, there are others who could split off via negotiation.

I mean even in the Irish example, there were factions who never accepted the peace process - but support for them was gradually drained by including the more moderate (even if only by comparison) elements.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And I think it's because the British govt were in contact with the Republican movement, that they realized that one wing, or in fact, a big chunk, could be split away from military solutions, towards the ballot box. Of course, the ultras cried foul, and threatened further attacks, but they were isolated by various means. The same thing happened in Iraq, but then the Iraqui govt messed it up, as far as I can see, and pushed back against the Sunni reconcilers. Hence, the tribes turned to IS, to an extent.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done.

Well, there is the actual material support that the US and UK governments have provided to AQ linked groups in Syria over the last few years.
I thought that British governments supported various Libyan groups, who fought against Gaddafi, and were of dubious Islamist credentials. Abedi's father is supposed to be a member of LIFG, which Gordon Correra (BBC) is saying was sometimes supported by the West. Links to AQ supposedly.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.

Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.
Are we confining this courtesy to the Islamists or is the plan to sit down with Jamie Copeland and Thomas McNair, while we are at it?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.

Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
What I don't understand is why Corbyn today is unable to condemn the IRA in clear, unambiguous terms. Asked (repeatedly) whether he thinks the IRA's actions were wrong he seems unable to say 'yes', even as part of a wider answer. I find it equally offensive and baffling.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
So 'we' (the British Government, presumably) are to sit down and talk with 'the Jihadists' (if a representative group of them can be identified, which has always been a problem) on behalf of - whom? Don't lets delude ourselves - it's the USA who are the major players here - and, of course, the Russians. The UK has only a walking-on role. Or are we talking about a separate deal in these post-Brexit times?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought that the Western powers have always been talking with various groups, depending on which is the flavour of the month. See the Libyan anti-Gaddafi groups which seem to have been in favour, and out of favour alternately. And of course, there are talks with IS-sympathizing sheikhs and tribes, trying to deconvert them. The UK may have a role, as UK intelligence has had some prestige.

In Syria, there were Cameron's vaunted 'friendly fighters' of uncertain provenance, but I guess they have either been bombed by the Russians, or melted away, or are just fighting Assad.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And not just talks, apparently. Many stories of large sums of money changing hands, so that leaders change sides, and also stories of war criminals, who perpetrated mass slaughter on Shia civilians, were given wads of cash. C'est la guerre. (That's war for you).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
So 'we' (the British Government, presumably) are to sit down and talk with 'the Jihadists' (if a representative group of them can be identified, which has always been a problem) on behalf of - whom? Don't lets delude ourselves - it's the USA who are the major players here - and, of course, the Russians. The UK has only a walking-on role. Or are we talking about a separate deal in these post-Brexit times?

Mainly there needs to be a discussion within the UK. It doesn't need to be the government taking a lead, indeed it may be better if it isn't. Maybe a few "maverick" MPs with a passion for peace and justice (who don't mind that in 20 years time their name will be forever associated with sharing a platform with groups who were terrorists at the time). Churches and other faith groups. Local community groups, local councils. Anyone and everyone who is committed to trying to talk, as a better solution than further violence. Start the wagon rolling, and maybe the government can jump on later and take concrete actions.

Internationally people can talk on the same informal, local level. But, ultimately there will need to be international action - with the EU, US, Russia Middle Eastern and other Muslim majority states being the main players.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One of the odd things about the campaign, is that Mrs May looks frail and timid and dishonest, in the face of opposition. She caves in quite quickly. Corbyn has withstood an absolute battering from trash media and right wing dingbats. So it goes.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>

I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>

I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.

What would such evidence look like? How do you measure success and how do you connect it to the action? Hamas recently revised their constitution to tone down the anti-Semitic rhetoric and move towards recognising Israel. Was that partly down to engagement from western politicians, including Corbyn? How do you tell, unless someone claims that as an influence. But, as backbench MPs, their influence was likely small. Jaw-jaw always has to be better than war-war, and putting Corbyn in a position to engage in this more influentially can only be a good thing.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.

I'd be interested in links which prove Corbyn's support of bombing and shooting, as opposed to supporting a united Ireland.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.

I'd be interested in links which prove Corbyn's support of bombing and shooting, as opposed to supporting a united Ireland.
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago. As he says:

quote:
It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did – or still do – support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecently.

There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win.


 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
If the Tories are pinning electoral success on Jeremy Corbyn's unwise connections from twenty years ago then they must be worried about Labour's policies being more popular than their own.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
There's a line of reasoning among various left-wingers which goes:

Powerful oppressors have never stopped oppressing people because they were just asked politely. They've only ever ceded power when they have been forced to do so. (Partly true; I think more complicated than that.)
Violence by the oppressed is almost always judged more harshly than violence by the oppressors. (I think mostly true in so far as oppressors usually have better access to the media and official spokespeople. Exceptions occur where the media is unsympathetic to the oppressors anyway.)

Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland were unjustly oppressed. Free and fair elections did nothing to resolve this, partly because the elections weren't free and fair, but mostly because the Protestants had enough of a majority to win even free and fair elections. (True. Ironically the army was originally sent into Northern Ireland to try to resolve the problem.)

Therefore, violence by the IRA ought to be judged much less harshly than it was judged by the media. If we accept the full argument, then if the IRA hadn't been violent the Peace Process might never have happened. Anyone complaining about people appearing on platforms with the IRA ought equally to complain about people appearing on platforms with the security services.

I think that position in the strong form is moraly wrong. But I think it is a morally wrong position that someone who cares about morality could hold as a moral mistake; it's not a position that marks someone out as someone who doesn't care about morality. I think the same about Tony Blair's support of Bush in the second Iraq War: a moral mistake but compatible with trying to be moral.

Whether it is altogether wise for a political party to elect a leader who has publically made that mistake in the past is maybe another matter.

[ 24. May 2017, 22:05: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago.

I'm not expecting you to change your mind on this, but your 'powerful' piece by Massie contains (at least) one glaring and potentially holed-below-the-waterline error.

Corbyn wasn't on the board of Labour Briefing. So all that stuff you think he published and approved of? Nope. Link.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago.

I'm not expecting you to change your mind on this, but your 'powerful' piece by Massie contains (at least) one glaring and potentially holed-below-the-waterline error.

Corbyn wasn't on the board of Labour Briefing. So all that stuff you think he published and approved of? Nope. Link.

Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...

Actually, the specific claim was that he was on the editorial board in December 1984 when the article in question was published. The links by Rentoul do not relate to this time period.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>

I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.

What would such evidence look like? How do you measure success and how do you connect it to the action?
I'm not the one making the claim that Mr Corbyn's approach to the IRA means he would be good at tackling Islamist death cults. Presumably the people who are making such claims have some evidence base for it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not the one making the claim that Mr Corbyn's approach to the IRA means he would be good at tackling Islamist death cults. Presumably the people who are making such claims have some evidence base for it.

For me the main point is that the current approach is not working. There has to be a better way, and simply labelling someone who does not hold to the current paradigm as "weak on terrorism" seems lazy at best, and possibly totally inaccurate. Whether opening dialogue between UK authorities and the radical (or, radicalisable) communities within the UK will produce significant and rapid reductions in terrorist incidents is difficult to judge (not least when the rate of terrorist attacks in the UK is very low it's difficult to measure changes in that rate). But, it seems to be worth a try - while not reducing the traditional intelligence-lead policing (which I've seen nothing to suggest any of the party leaders would advocate).

At the end of the day, if there had been an election in the autumn shortly after Mrs May took up the reins of Conservative Party leadership, and Labour had won the events in Manchester wouldn't have turned out any differently. I don't actually believe who is Prime Minister makes any difference on these issues, at least not in the short term. Though, some policy decisions are very likely to make things worse in the medium to long term (internment, travel restrictions based on religion without significant evidence that the individual is a potential criminal, anything that makes communities feel unwelcome in the UK).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...

Actually, the specific claim was that he was on the editorial board in December 1984 when the article in question was published. The links by Rentoul do not relate to this time period.
In the interview transcript Mr Corbyn denies any involvement with the publication beyond being a reader and a contributor. The links by Rentoul et al suggest his involvement was more than that.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And Diane Abbott's done another interview:

Interviewer (ITN): Do you know the number of net losses so far for Labour?

Diane Abbott: At the time of us doing this interview I think the net losses are about 50.

Interviewer: There are actually 125 net losses so far.

Diane Abbott: Well the last time I looked we had net losses of 100 but obviously this is a moving picture.

I've just seen this on an earlier episode of Have I Got News For You. Why is she so in the forefront of the party? Is it years of service? That interview seemed like a trainwreck...no consistency.

I allow for politicians making mistakes [we all do...and if they come clean good on them], but from what I hear she has made a few. And something like the above just seems, well, incompetent. How can you switch from 50 to 100 in the space of a few seconds? Or am I being uncharitable?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Dafyd wrote:

quote:
Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland were unjustly oppressed. Free and fair elections did nothing to resolve this, partly because the elections weren't free and fair, but mostly because the Protestants had enough of a majority to win even free and fair elections. (True. Ironically the army was originally sent into Northern Ireland to try to resolve the problem.)

Therefore, violence by the IRA ought to be judged much less harshly than it was judged by the media. If we accept the full argument, then if the IRA hadn't been violent the Peace Process might never have happened. Anyone complaining about people appearing on platforms with the IRA ought equally to complain about people appearing on platforms with the security services.

There are multiple narratives about those times. For example, I remember being told that after 1969, when the civil rights march was attacked, partly by off-duty cops, Catholic areas saw loyalist mobs breaking into houses, beating people up, and so on.

Inhabitants didn't know what to do, and there was scorn about the IRA - I Ran Away, and so on.

Eventually, self-defence operations began, in those areas.

However, I have also been told that this is mostly mythic, and that nobody wrote I Ran Away on walls.

But you can imagine how the various narratives progress from here on in. For example, the British Army - defender of local Catholic areas, or prime instigator of violence?

I don't really know how one sifts actual facts from myths.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Never mind JC's being an apologist or supporter (or not) for the IRA, what about Diane Abbott?

In an interview carried in Labour and Ireland (volume 2, number 5) a journal published by the Labour Committee on Ireland (which still exists, largely funded by various unions), Ms Abbot was quoted as follows
quote:
(Ireland)“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
In the same interview she stated that she didn't regard herself as British. In answer to the question "Would you see yourself as 'Black-British'" she gave the answer
quote:
No, I would self-define myself just as Black. Though I was born here in London, I couldn't identify as British - and anyway most British people don't accept us as British. God! British people can be so racist
So there you have it: the person proposing to become Home Secretary doesn't consider herself British, considers "British People" to be racist, and thought a defeat for the "British State" would be a good thing.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Ian Climacus , I'm going to be very charitable and suggest that as she spoke, a passer-by, anxious to keep Ms Abbott well informed and up-to-date, traits for which she's so well known, was flashing cards with the latest figures on them, just outside camera range. And not where the interviewer could see them either.

Yet another nail in the coffin for the reforms that Attlee introduced and which were an accepted part of British mores for so long.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?

Perhaps in reality that doesn't really matter any more. If he wins the election, Queenie is hardly going to refuse to go along with it is she?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?

One can accept the world as it is and work within its structures without necessarily approving of them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?

The Tories are going to win on a platform of kicking schoolchildren, kicking the NHS, kicking the disabled, kicking old people, punishing the poor, unemployed, sick. They've got a platform which is clearly bad for a very large percentage of the population.

And the best response put forward here is "oh, that nasty Corbyn liked the IRA*, that Dianne Abbot can't remember numbers, and they don't even respect the monarchy".

Politics is truly dead.


*I mean seriously. Have any of you seen the way May and her mates fawn over the Saudis?

[ 25. May 2017, 16:11: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yeah, but the Saudis are very very important. They're very rich, they buy tons of weapons from the UK, so they can bomb Yemen, and more important, they sponsor Wahhabism, which is behind many fundamentalist groups.

I call that a win/win and a triumph for Western diplomacy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.

I was just walking today in Newport, where the Uprising of 1839 led to people dying, being executed and transported - for the sake of things we now take for granted - including the secret ballot, payment of MPs and a vote for everyone.

Although the oaths of office are written in the language of loyalty to the crown, it is in fact loyalty to the Chartist ideals which make this country great.

Hence plenty of republicans have been able to get over any potential problems with the oaths.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?

I would suppose there's an interesting legal answer, probably to do with the Queen's Two Bodies, and I would suppose it's probably invoked whenever a republican takes office as an MP. Practically I think it's generally recognised that as long as he pursues only legal and constitutional paths to a Republic he is loyal to the UK people as a whole.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
considers "British People" to be racist,

Britain is a racist society. Not everyone in it and not all to the same degree, but it is still racist as a whole. Strides have been made, but anyone who actually thinks otherwise is blind.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

In an interview carried in Labour and Ireland (volume 2, number 5) a journal published by the Labour Committee on Ireland (which still exists, largely funded by various unions), Ms Abbot was quoted as follows

When was this? I can't find a date for this with a quick search. Diane Abbott is 63.

LilBuddha is right to say that there is still racism in British society; it is also right to say that there is much less racism than there was 40 years ago.

The statement "most British people don't see us as British" was true in Diane Abbott's youth, and IMO is largely false now.

Ah - now I find from Wikipedia that that was a quote from 1984. It sounds like a reasonable enough claim for that era.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?

One can accept the world as it is and work within its structures without necessarily approving of them.
Indeed. In Canada, we have had governments in Quebec, and the Official Opposition in the federal Parliament, formed by Quebec separatist parties, swearing allegiance to the Queen. Not to say that scruple is a luxury, but an excess thereof...
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?

Just as I did on my admission, all those years ago: I swore allegiance to HM and to "her heirs and successors according to law". In other words, my allegiance to HM will cease when a republic come about by lawful means. Nothing there to stop my advocating for that sort of change.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.

If you mean the vote he'd take as PM, I'd say he'd have won the election by then.

There is a ferment in the polling blogs. It appears that the first poll based on fieldwork after the bombing continues to show the Tory lead narrowing.

Perhaps people don't trust May to keep them safe.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether opening dialogue between UK authorities and the radical (or, radicalisable) communities within the UK will produce significant and rapid reductions in terrorist incidents is difficult to judge (not least when the rate of terrorist attacks in the UK is very low it's difficult to measure changes in that rate).

It depends. I agree with previous posters that there is no negotiation with ISIS - not because negotiation is weakness, but because there is nothing they want that it would be morally licit or feasible to give them. In this respect they are qualitatively different from the IRA or even Hamas, and different only in degree from Nazis.

In terms of trying to dissuade people from joining ISIS in the first place, the government are already trying to do this - it is called Channel and is part of the Prevent strategy. There are varying opinions on the Internet about whether it works or not. It is then relevant to ask whether Mr Corbyn has the skills to make it work.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

LilBuddha is right to say that there is still racism in British society; it is also right to say that there is much less racism than there was 40 years ago.

The statement "most British people don't see us as British" was true in Diane Abbott's youth, and IMO is largely false now.

Ah - now I find from Wikipedia that that was a quote from 1984. It sounds like a reasonable enough claim for that era.

There is a fairly good biography of Ms Abbott here - it does seem to me that she was entirely justified in having a chip on her shoulder in 1984.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.

Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.

Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.

The analysis I've read seems to suggest it's more down to the hideous mess May has made over the dementia tax and u-turn(s) on a cap.

Interesting times either way, but I agree that the next big thing will be the reaction to Corbyn's speech.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.

Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.

Whilst I think that it would be pants-wettingly hilarious if May could only beat Corbyn by the same order of magnitude that Cameron beat Miliband, it should be remembered that this is but one poll. At one point during the 1997 campaign the Tories closed into within 5% of Labour's vote. You may recall that it didn't quite work out for them on the night.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.

Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.

Whilst I think that it would be pants-wettingly hilarious if May could only beat Corbyn by the same order of magnitude that Cameron beat Miliband, it should be remembered that this is but one poll. At one point during the 1997 campaign the Tories closed into within 5% of Labour's vote. You may recall that it didn't quite work out for them on the night.
Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.

Two weeks for some dirt to emerge regarding Theresa May. Most of the Tories have had an easy ride from Labour so far, with the exception of Ian Duncan Smith's attempt to cut welfare spending by killing the recipients.

[ 26. May 2017, 11:27: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.

Two weeks for some dirt to emerge regarding Theresa May. Most of the Tories have had an easy ride from Labour so far, with the exception of Ian Duncan Smith's attempt to cut welfare spending by killing the recipients.
"Home Secretary May presided over massive cuts to the police force, leaving terrorists to blow your kids up". I don't think Labour will have the balls for that. UKIP seemed to try and blame May for not getting a grip on immigration yesterday, and predictably it got rather hot.

Hammering away at other aspects of her record as home secretary should be quite possible though, as I'm sure there's plenty of lamentable things about it. Perhaps Labour have made a conscious decision not to "get personal"? But there's plenty of ball to be played, without playing the (wo)man, I would have thought.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.

He took an oath (actually probably an affirmation) took the Queen every time he became an MP. A purely symbolic oath is not worth refusing to take your seat over.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.

Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.

I don't think he's betting the farm; it's what he believes, and probably has since Iraq. But watch the right wing distort it.

He is a tough old thing, for sure.

I agree that the Tories will win, but Labour will be pleased to avoid a landslide.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
"Home Secretary May presided over massive cuts to the police force, leaving terrorists to blow your kids up".

As well as a policy that encouraged the two-way flow of extremists between Libya and the UK:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.

He took an oath (actually probably an affirmation) took the Queen every time he became an MP. A purely symbolic oath is not worth refusing to take your seat over.
Tell that to Sinn Fein.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.

He took an oath (actually probably an affirmation) took the Queen every time he became an MP. A purely symbolic oath is not worth refusing to take your seat over.
Tell that to Sinn Fein.
IIRC, that was (and may still be) a consequence of Sinn Fein party policy. Jeremy Corbyn was and is a member of the Labour Party which has no such policy. Sorry to be so dull and boring.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I have realized to my great shame, that I have been asking questions about police cuts, but I now realize that this was unpatriotic, in fact, sympathetic to terrorism, and I hereby abjectly renounce this, and vow henceforth to take as gospel all words delivered by the Great Leader, even those which contradict each other. But how foul even to say that! She cannot contradict herself!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.

Two weeks for some dirt to emerge regarding Theresa May. Most of the Tories have had an easy ride from Labour so far, with the exception of Ian Duncan Smith's attempt to cut welfare spending by killing the recipients.
Dirt cuts both ways.

I am fairly certain that Mrs May keeps in a desk drawer a slim but interesting file, put together at Mr Cameron's behest when Mr Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition. One of the younger Spads made the mistake of referring to it as "the nuclear option" in Mrs May's hearing, and no one has made the mistake subsequently, but in private, when Mrs May is not in earshot, they call it nothing else. The file caused some froideur between the head of MI5 and Mr Cameron because Mr Parker guards his secrets jealously and Mr Cameron resented Mr Parker's jocular remark that if the couldn't beat Mr Corbyn in a fair fight, he didn't deserve to be Prime Minister. Mrs May uttered similar sentiments when she first learned of the file's existence but pretended not to hear when Sir Jeremy Heywood offered to have the contents shredded. Not least of the concerns of Mr Timothy and Ms Hill is whether the Sun or the Mail is to have the privilege of this particular exclusive, should circumstances make it their painful duty to make the contents public.

"Seriously, Nick, how damaging do you think this really is if it comes to the attention of a fair minded member of the British public".
"Prime Minister, we're not going to leak it to a fair minded member of the British public. We're going to leak it to Paul Dacre".
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I do so hope that happens because (a) I'd love to know what's in the file, it will distract me from my angst-ridden menial existence for, oh, at least twenty minutes, and (b) because it will be a surefire indication that the Tories have realised that they've lost the arguments and lost the campaign. If Labour spun it the right way it could clinch a Trumpian upset.

I mean, what exactly have they got? Corbyn talked to the IRA before it was socially acceptable to do so? He once appeared on the Iranian version of Andrew Marr? I believe the phrase is "priced in".
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
I mean, what exactly have they got? Corbyn talked to the IRA before it was socially acceptable to do so? He once appeared on the Iranian version of Andrew Marr? I believe the phrase is "priced in".
Actually, if they are keeping something up their sleeve it is likely to be rather serious. Most of us will admit to opinions in private, among friends, that we would hesitate to express in polite company. Given what we know about JC in the public domain, it's not outwith the grounds of plausibility that there is something yet to come.

Against this there is the consideration that a degree of naivety appears to be part of Mr Corbyn's make up and that he has expressed no opinion in private that he would not announce on a podium. If this is the case, it is to his credit. I remember that when the Mail ran a hit job on Ralph Miliband being seriously impressed as to the paucity of the case against him. A hardline Marxist who gave so few hostages to fortune was a rarity among the left wing intellectuals of his generation. It may be that the worst about Corbyn is already in the public domain and, as you say, priced in.

The other factor that mitigates against the existence of The File is that, whilst MI5 would have been asleep at the wheel if, say, they weren't bugging Gerry Adam's phone in the '80s they might not wish to cough to that, even at this late juncture. It would be amusingly ironic if Mi5 had a shed load of dirt on him but came over all 'REDACTED' when it came to publicising it.

We have different opinions of Corbyn, on this thread, I am not a fan, although he appears to be doing surprisingly well, at present. But I would be surprised if there was anyone who thought that Cameron or May were too principled to get on the blower to MI5 or Special Branch to see what dirt they had

A final thought. I wonder what Mr Osborne learned when he was in government and whether he might choose to keep his counsel or make something public so that it was the Standard what won it.

Given that the country is about to go to hell in a handcart after June the 8th, one must take ones entertainment where one can find it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

I am fairly certain that Mrs May keeps in a desk drawer a slim but interesting file,

However facetiously, you are giving May credit of a control and understanding that she has so far failed to demonstrate.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?

I'm not certain your point. For all his issues, Corbyn is more qualified for simply being an adult. Even May is not in the same league of incompetent as Trump.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?

A heck of a lot more pleasant thought than one with Trump as President and May as PM. At least Corbyn won't be providing cover for Trump starting a war with Iran.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Neither has had any experience of governing, of developing and implementing policy, of carrying out the myriad tasks of day-to-day government. Corbyn has had very limited experience outside parliament save for being a union organiser and then a party official - at least Trump for all his faults has had a wider background than that.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
We know Corbyn is less likely to cave under pressure than May.

He also benefits from the assistance of a cabinet and civil service, with whom he is likely to actually discuss policy choices, (unlike May, apparently planning a major social care policy change with out reference to more than a handful of people).

He has sat in the Houses of Parliament for decades, so he actually knows how the UK legislature and constitution works (unlike, it would appear, Trump's understanding of US government.)

Many of the policies he espouses enjoy the support of voters.

He is able to draw, and maintain, a distinction between - this is what I personally would want in my ideal world, and this is what we have democratically agreed we will do and I will lead a government to deliver.

He has actually ensured the party policies are costed, and allowed for a change in people's behaviour in response to tax changes.

He has chosen a highly intelligent and well informed lawyer mp to lead the Brexit negotiation.

If Labour wins, I am sure the country will still be functioning in five years time. I hope and believe it will be functioning better than it is now.

[ 27. May 2017, 07:06: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Corbyn certainly has had the experience to which you refer of being an MP for many years - something Trump sorely lacks. His time as Leader of the Opposition does not suggest to me that he has the ability to work with a team either of parliamentary colleagues or the civil service.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Corbyn's ability to hang on under pressure has not gone unnoticed by the masses, niether has Cameron's disappearing act post Brexit.

He is right to question Britain's foreign policy, even though most have long since given up wondering what that policy actually is other than hanging on to America's coat tails.
The big problem for Labour on that score is Blair's more than enthusiastic support for Bush post 9/11, the fall out from Arab Spring together all the oil-grabbing crap which currently seems to make the World go around.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Even May is not in the same league of incompetent as Trump.

TBH, that is a very exclusive league.

Something has occurred to me over the last week - and referenced by some things people are saying on Twitter - does May actually want to win?

Let me explain my thinking. She knows what the next government has to face. Brexit negotiations, Trump, the problems of the economic chaos the Tories have caused. Maybe she realises that the next administration is screwed - because she has screwed it. So she wants someone else to have the responsibility for that.

The only reason I would consider this is that I think the second Major government did the same - they expected to lose, and were stitched up when they won. Leaving the next election for Blair to win.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I dunno, that seems unlikely.

But I'd have thought that if May ends up in a new parliament with a similar or even reduced majority, she's going to find it very hard to remain in charge.

After all she said she wanted the election to give her a strong mandate. If it doesn't give one, then she's personally politically finished even if she gets a majority, one would think.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Although - I don't understand the reasoning behind the Tories apparently shelving the idea of an election relaunch. If they don't do it today or tomorrow, when are they going to do it?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Corbyn certainly has had the experience to which you refer of being an MP for many years - something Trump sorely lacks. His time as Leader of the Opposition does not suggest to me that he has the ability to work with a team either of parliamentary colleagues or the civil service.

That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn. May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues or the civil service, beyond a certain ability to deflect blame onto other people (remember Hammond's budget?) and little interest in learning.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
at least Trump for all his faults has had a wider background than that.

Really? He ran a property empire that his father set up* and had a reality show. What else has he done?

*One that he ran less effectively than he claims. Daddy had to bail him out more than once and still he would have made more letting the money sit in a low risk investment account.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Tell that to Sinn Fein.

That's rather different. Most republicans in the UK accept that our current constitutional monarchy is legitimate, and supported by a majority of people in the UK. They would like to change that state of affairs by normal democratic means, such that the heirs and successors of HM are the new British Republic. It's not inconsistent to take the oath on that basis.

Sinn Fein think that the British presence in Ireland is an illegitimate occupation, and so far as I can tell that the unionist residents of NI are British settlers who have no particular right to even live in Ireland, let alone vote for it to remain in the UK. And so because they don't think that the Westminster government is in any way the legitimate government of NI, they don't feel able to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.

Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.

quote:
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues

Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!

The main problem appears to be his lack of competence as a leader.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The Tory media is already desperate. The Torygraph was trying to smear Corbyn the other day for being paid as an MP for as long as he's been one and qualifying for a pension. Like all the others.

The bastard.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Especially as he's probably done more to earn that salary and pension than several Tory MPs.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
...and I doubt if he's fiddled his expenses in order to finance a splendid new house for his ducks.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
He's got a reputation as not claiming much in expenses at all. Though, being a London MP would make his expenses much less, no second home needed, little in the way of travel.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.

Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.

quote:
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues

Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!

The main problem appears to be his lack of competence as a leader.

Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.

Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
The two articles you link to were written nearly a year ago. I believe them. I'm referring to Corbyn's behaviour since the leadership contest, which if you exclude Corbyn's lamentable handling of the Brexit bill, has shown marginal signs of improvement. Not much improvement, but his chief competitor is Theresa May, and I really don't think May's any better.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.

If by 'tried to accommodate' you mean he appointed them to cabinet positions and then entirely ignored them, making policy in their areas of responsibility off the cuff without consultation, then sure. There are too many accounts from people who tried to work with him to that effect.

They launched a no confidence vote and leadership contest after the Brexit vote when Corbyn was as conspicuous by his absence as May was. I think Corbyn's leadership of the parliamentary party during the Brexit bill shows their lack of confidence was amply justified.

[ 27. May 2017, 21:16: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.

Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.

quote:
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues

Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!

The main problem appears to be his lack of competence as a leader.

Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
I suspect some of that was over ideological differences, and in large part because they bought into the idea of him being an electoral disaster. Those that believed that then did their damndest to oust him, and failed.

Like any other political party, if he wins they will fall into line behind him.

Conversely, if May wins but decreases the Tory majority - her party will throw her under a bus. If the Lib Dems show no improvement, Farron will disappear. If the Labour vote tanks in the way predicted, then Corbyn will lose his position. If he loses but improves Labour's showing over the last election, then he will probably stay in post long enough for an MP with similar policy priorities to bid for the leadership.

If he wins, my guess would be that he'd resign 4 years into a five year term as prime minister - because of his age.

That is politics.

[ 27. May 2017, 21:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
FWIW, my opinion of Mr Corbyn has improved since the manifesto was published.

My objections to him have always been twofold. Firstly there is the competency issue, which hasn't gone away. But my other objection is that it is very, very easy to say 'austerity is bad'. Pretty much everyone agrees that austerity is bad, that's why it's called austerity and not Glorious Liberation From The Shackles Of The State. Even the Tories - whatever their private opinions - tend to present it as a necessary evil thrust upon them by Labour mismanagement, rather than a positive good in itself. Calling out the evils of austerity is not, in my view, an impressive achievement.

The manifesto is, at least, an attempt to set out an alternative. One can argue over the figures in their costings* but at least they present them, which is more than can be said for the government.


* The £4bn margin of error to allow for uncertainty and behavioural change looks cautious until you realise that overall public expenditure at present is £772bn. In effect this margin of error is claiming a budget forecast accuracy of around 99.5%!
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change. People have got used to presidential style party leadership - where the leader largely dictates and also fronts and takes credit for any big initiative.

Himself Corbyn has said this about leadership: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/jeremy-corbyn-gets-personal-in-one-off-campaign-speech Others have said this about 'strong' leadership http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39748185

Corbyn has campaigned much of his career, participating in movements that bring diverse groups together - whose agendas overlap only in some parts of their common cause. He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.

If you are not a labour member you may not realise that the entire membership were consulted, in a necessarily limited way, on the contents of the manifesto. We were asked to rank priorities etc.

In addition, the previous year or more the argument for, for example, rail nationalisation - has been made often enough and well enough to permeate the national discourse. Now appearing in the manifesto it has public support.

I think you can argue that organising policy reviews, consultation and building consensus on policy within the party and the public is a form of leadership. And it is an important form of leadership.

Corbyn is by no means perfect, but to talk about his period as leader as if he has been doing nothing is to miss quite substantial issues - including the massive growth in the size of the party itself.

You may think that matters to party insiders only - but it makes a big practical difference. There is finance through the membership fees. But also engagement in campaigning, I have been canvassing for my local MP this election, we are regularly getting 20 or more folk turning up to canvass - today it was nearly 40. These are the people who will make personal contact with voters, and at the moment - Labour has many more of them than the other parties. (Like me, many of them are doing this for the first time this election.). I am convinced that this goes some way to explaining the reduction in the gap in the polls.

[ 27. May 2017, 21:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
* The £4bn margin of error to allow for uncertainty and behavioural change looks cautious until you realise that overall public expenditure at present is £772bn. In effect this margin of error is claiming a budget forecast accuracy of around 99.5%!

But they are only planning to change the tax take by 48 billion, so they are allowing a little under 10% for people changing their tax arrangements in response to those specific changes. Which I think is a reasonable margin of error.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.

No, this isn't about the Blairites.

I'm talking about the people who actually tried to make it work with Corbyn, but couldn't, because of his incompetence. Please read the two earlier linked articles for examples; there are many more.

The problem came entirely from Corbyn.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change...the entire membership were consulted...


Crowdsourcing and that is original, but that's not the thing. Corbyn has given us overwhelming evidence that he's a poor manager. Only 17% of his MPs supported him in the confidence vote. That's appalling- and for many/most of them, basic competence is the main issue.

He'd be overwhelmed as PM.
quote:
He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.

So...what will actually happen to Trident if he's elected PM? The leader of the Labour Party is trying to undermine his own party policy as hard as he can.
quote:
...the massive growth in the size of the party itself.

Yes, the membership has increased. But 38% of them don't want him. They'd rather have a nobody called Owen Smith, who ran with very similar policies, so they're not the issue. Again, it's basic leadership skills.
quote:
I am convinced that this goes some way to explaining the reduction in the gap in the polls.
I think the narrowing of the polls is mainly down to the appalling Tory campaign. If Milliband were running Labour, he'd be a shoe-in for PM by now.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

Yes, the membership has increased. But 38% of them don't want him. They'd rather have a nobody called Owen Smith, who ran with very similar policies, so they're not the issue. Again, it's basic leadership skills.

Owen Smith believes whatever he's paid to believe on any given day. That's why most Labour members preferred and continue to prefer Jeremy Corbyn. The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement. They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Trident will be replaced because that is the party's policy. That is, we're committed to a continuous at sea deterrent. He said the role of the nuclear deterrent will be reviewed, that would include the standard operational procedures for it, where the replacement is bought from, how many warheads we retain etc.

Re why the PLP opposed him, I stand by my original analysis - I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership - so they had little else to use as a basis for a campaign.

I don't think he'd be overwhelmed as pm, he has grown into his current role. I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.

Cameron (and for that matter May) lost the referendum, far fewer of Tory voters voted remain than Labour or SNP (their proportions were very similar). Hammond pulled a U-turn days after his first budget, May pulled a U-turn on a manifesto pledge within 4 days of launch. As regards infighting - did you watch the Tory leadership contest ?

[ 28. May 2017, 19:17: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Owen Smith believes whatever he's paid to believe on any given day.

Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.

quote:
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
I've seen Corbyn-supporters saying that they hope the Tories wipe out the Blairites. I haven't seen so much of the other.
It's true Blair said that one should vote for candidates who oppose Brexit whether Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green or even if they're Tory. Which a) he has a point since Brexit is not going to advance any agenda other than the Daily Mail; b) the Tory bit is purely theoretical unless you're in Rushcliffe.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If the Tories are returned with a comfortable majority the infighting will probably begin. The degree to which Britain is involved with Europe messed with Tory unity once and there is no reason to believe it won't do so again.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
As the spartans would say: "If."
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change...the entire membership were consulted...

Crowdsourcing and that is original, but that's not the thing. Corbyn has given us overwhelming evidence that he's a poor manager. Only 17% of his MPs supported him in the confidence vote. That's appalling- and for many/most of them, basic competence is the main issue.

He'd be overwhelmed as PM.
quote:
He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.

Which is why he voted against the Party whip so often.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.


I don't recall saying that, but please feel free to provide a link.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Gee D not coping would be throwing a tantrum and trying to start a new party. Like the sdlp split.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?

Following on, I am hearing May is performing rather badly as time goes on. Is this wishful thinking by the left-leaning press I read, e.g.
quote:
Theresa May has collapsed as the dynamic, presidential leader she was being lined up as. The fall has been rapid and stark. May looked wholly in command two weeks ago; now she looks imperious and irritable, as if the whole idea of an ELECTION against JEREMY CORBYN is an absurd thing to have to do at all, much less actually compete in.
(article behind paywall)

[ 29. May 2017, 06:42: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?

Following on, I am hearing May is performing rather badly as time goes on. Is this wishful thinking by the left-leaning press I read, e.g.
quote:
Theresa May has collapsed as the dynamic, presidential leader she was being lined up as. The fall has been rapid and stark. May looked wholly in command two weeks ago; now she looks imperious and irritable, as if the whole idea of an ELECTION against JEREMY CORBYN is an absurd thing to have to do at all, much less actually compete in.
(article behind paywall)

Probably to some extent, there's clearly a difference between the right and left wing press.

But a month ago a large section of the left wing press were only reporting voters in tears going "I'd like to vote labour, but I've heard Teresa's strong and stable". So either it's part of an elaborate ploy to create a (false) narrative of change, they were hoping to really boost the Lib Dems and given up on that, or there's something changed in their reading of the situation.

And it's not just the leftish press, (what leftist paper's behind a paywall?), but the businessy right wing papers are going a bit more mixed. (E.g. in the telegraph headlines you still have "Jeremy Corbyn has long hated Britain"*, but also (the more defensive) "Teresa May isn't attacking pensioners but welfarism", "Labour narrows gap as women voters surge".)


*This article isn't behind the paywall (and actually also turns out to be brutal towards May, but from the right)
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But they are only planning to change the tax take by 48 billion, so they are allowing a little under 10% for people changing their tax arrangements in response to those specific changes. Which I think is a reasonable margin of error.

You are correct, I had misread 'uncertainty' as referring to uncertainty in the economy as a whole.
quote:
Re why the PLP opposed him, I stand by my original analysis - I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership
And I stand by my original response to this analysis. If those allegations of incompetence are in fact true - and abundant evidence was presented from multiple sources at the time - then they don't somehow become less true just because the people making those allegations had mixed motives for doing so.

I agree with Dafyd that Mr Corbyn does seem to have improved. I understand both Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell sent themselves on leadership courses, which would imply that they themselves accept there was some truth behind the allegations.

quote:
I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
This is a bit like one of those fundamentalist cults where if you question the leadership, it must be because you're a bad witness who doesn't love Jesus. Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
This is a bit like one of those fundamentalist cults where if you question the leadership, it must be because you're a bad witness who doesn't love Jesus. Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
You cult example would be true in normal times, but at the moment we have an election on - so Doublethink's question is valid - because at the end of the day you have only have a choice between one or the other.

Furthermore, if you want to advance the leadership course attendance as indication that there were problems working with the cabinet - the fact that they seem to have recognized them and tried to address them seems to be a better approach to criticism than cloistering oneself and only listening to an inner circle of two while bleeting 'strong and stable'.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?

Because if you live in England and don't live in a constituency where the Greens or the Lib Dems have a fighting chance and you don't vote for Corbyn then May will get in. Khan, to pick a random example, may or may not be more competent than Corbyn, but he's not going to get in no matter what happens.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.


I don't recall saying that, but please feel free to provide a link.
You said apropos of Jones that he didn't oppose the Tory welfare cuts which anyone with a shred of conscience would have done.
Cox voted exactly the same way as Jones, so if it's true of Jones it's true of Cox too.
That said, it's not true. They did oppose the welfare cuts as did the rest of the Labour Party. The claim they didn't is a smear. (Unless you think voting for an amendment doesn't count as opposing? If you think amendments don't count then do you think Corbyn actively supported May in refusing to protect EU nationals resident in Britain.)
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
at the end of the day you have only have a choice between one or the other.

I live in a safe Labour seat.

betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.

Sure, though in general this principle works at multiple levels (national as well as party).
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You said apropos of Jones that he didn't oppose the Tory welfare cuts which anyone with a shred of conscience would have done.
Cox voted exactly the same way as Jones, so if it's true of Jones it's true of Cox too.
That said, it's not true. They did oppose the welfare cuts as did the rest of the Labour Party. The claim they didn't is a smear. (Unless you think voting for an amendment doesn't count as opposing? If you think amendments don't count then do you think Corbyn actively supported May in refusing to protect EU nationals resident in Britain.)

Still no link. And who is Jones?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Anyone following "Battle for No 10" on channel 4.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Still no link. And who is Jones?

Smith. My mistake. No link because the Ship's archives are rotten. Found it.

I misremembered. You said 'ounce of conscience' not 'shred of conscience'.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.

Sure, though in general this principle works at multiple levels (national as well as party).
The other aspect to comparing Mr Corbyn's competence to Mrs May's is what happens after the election.

If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.

If, however, we say that Mrs May is monumentally incompetent, and Mr Corbyn still failed to defeat her, then, on the face of it at least, we are back into 'Mr Corbyn is monumentally incompetent' territory.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If, however, we say that Mrs May is monumentally incompetent, and Mr Corbyn still failed to defeat her, then, on the face of it at least, we are back into 'Mr Corbyn is monumentally incompetent' territory.

Not necessarily. There is a link on the Trump thread which suggests people are loathe to change, even when they do not like what they have.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement.

1) They were voting for a sitting leader rather than electing a new leader.

2) He got 16% at his original nomination, so 17% isn't a meaningful improvement.

3) If he can only get 17% of his party MPs to support him, that is by any stretch of the imagination an appalling result. Many of those were prepared to give him a go at the start. If he can't even get his MPs to support him, he's not going to cope with running the country.

quote:
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.

Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership - so they had little else to use as a basis for a campaign.

I don't think he'd be overwhelmed as pm, he has grown into his current role. I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.

Many of the 83% who didn't support him didn't start with an attack strategy, or any strategy apart from trying to make it work.

I've already given two links which make the point clearly enough; he's incompetent. A simple Google of “Corbyn incompetent” gives so many others that I hardly know where to begin.

Here's the top link for example.

All three of my links are from people who tried to support him, but because of his poor leadership qualities, gave up. To repeat, If he can't even get his MPs to support him, he's not fit to run the country.

quote:
Hammond pulled a U-turn days after his first budget, May pulled a U-turn on a manifesto pledge within 4 days of launch.

If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.

Far from it. It could more likely suggest that fewer voters want the continued destruction of the social reforms that had been an agreed base to UK politics for over a half century.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.

The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.

Far from it. It could more likely suggest that fewer voters want the continued destruction of the social reforms that had been an agreed base to UK politics for over a half century.
I think that amounts to saying that Corbyn is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that amounts to saying that Corbyn is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.

I don't think you can tell either way. There's a lot of clear blue (and red) water between Mrs. May and Mr. Corbyn. The election will tell us something about how much people prefer Mr. Corbyn to Mrs. May, or vice versa, but says very little about how they would rank some hypothetical Blairite or Brownite of reasonable competence against either.

If Corbyn does shockingly badly, it might suggest the wider public don't want what he's selling. If he wins, then he's won, and that's that. If he loses Milibandly, I don't think you have any way of telling whether a competent Blairite would have done better or worse - but I have no doubt that each wing of the party would claim a Milibandesque result as a vindication for their particular position.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Dafyd, no - it's a vote against the Tories not one for Corbyn.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Still no link. And who is Jones?

Smith. My mistake. No link because the Ship's archives are rotten. Found it.

I misremembered. You said 'ounce of conscience' not 'shred of conscience'.

So it amounts to you being desperate enough to try and twist me using a slightly over-broad brush when talking about Owen Smith a year ago into a direct attack on Jo Cox? Ffs...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

In the interview transcript Mr Corbyn denies any involvement with the publication beyond being a reader and a contributor.

.. within a particular time frame as explicitly specified by the interviewer. I mean if we are bringing up things that happened in the early 80s you can dig up videos of Thatcher giving rousing speeches to the Mujahadin, presumably she didn't continue her support for them when they were seen as radicals a few years later.

Meanwhile the charge sheet on the other side is rather more serious, the Home Office while May was its head, facilitated the two way traffic of Islamic radicals between the UK and Libya (where they received training from the UK government and were further radicalised):

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488

[Also reported on by Peter Oborne on the Mail, if the source above is too partisan in your eyes]

[ 30. May 2017, 09:21: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So it amounts to you being desperate enough to try and twist me using a slightly over-broad brush when talking about Owen Smith a year ago into a direct attack on Jo Cox? Ffs...

'Slightly over-broad brush' - that's a weasel euphemism if I've ever heard one.

You picked a charge that applied to all or the majority of Corbyn's critics and you conveniently forgot or hoped we'd forget that Cox was one of them.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
JC was really bad on Women's Hour (Radio 4) this morning. The failure on costs was embarrassing, and may well have done some real damage. Disappointing in view of what had seemed to me to be a significant improvement in his public appearance.

Here is a link.

[ 30. May 2017, 18:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You picked a charge that applied to all or the majority of Corbyn's critics and you conveniently forgot or hoped we'd forget that Cox was one of them.

You know what, if you want to accuse me of something, come out and say it. In hell if you need to. Otherwise explain why you feel the need to dig up and argue about a year old post. From what I recall a year after the fact, it didn't occur to me that Jo Cox was one of those who trotted obediently into the lobbies on the welfare vote. For all that she said and did some nice things I wouldn't have wanted her as Labour party leader either.

[ 30. May 2017, 20:20: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
JC was really bad on Women's Hour (Radio 4) this morning. The failure on costs was embarrassing, and may well have done some real damage.

Matt in the Telegraph is often on fire, but today particularly so.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.

The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.

On the other hand, renewing Trident, paying masses and masses of money just to be able to kill innocent civilians, is Labour party policy. Muddleheaded is the new normal for them.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
Meanwhile, not only does Diane Abbott not have a clue about how much their police officer commitment will cost, but Jeremy Corbyn seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.

One might get the impression that Labour rather like telling people about all the money they want to spend on things, but 'How we're going to pay for it all' isn't seen as a priority.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.

The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed, and tbh, I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.

The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed, and tbh, I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
As mentioned on BBC's The News Quiz, the 6p figure was based on the cost of a breakfast in the (heavily subsided) Houses of Parliament restaurants. [Biased]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.

You could just about get a small bowl of off-brand cornflakes for that, or a couple of slices of cheap bread and marge.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement.

1) They were voting for a sitting leader rather than electing a new leader.

2) He got 16% at his original nomination, so 17% isn't a meaningful improvement.

3) If he can only get 17% of his party MPs to support him, that is by any stretch of the imagination an appalling result. Many of those were prepared to give him a go at the start. If he can't even get his MPs to support him, he's not going to cope with running the country.

quote:
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.

Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.

Swings and roundabouts. First time in years that mine have been.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.

The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.
The suicide rate has gone up for a reason.

And I absolutely guarantee you, that if their care change comes in, we will see some elderly people committing suicide because they worry about being a burden to their family. Just as there will be people who decline care they actually need.

[ 31. May 2017, 06:58: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.

The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.

On the other hand, renewing Trident, paying masses and masses of money just to be able to kill innocent civilians, is Labour party policy. Muddleheaded is the new normal for them.

Doublethink has already addressed the social care point.

re: Trident, it is (of course) Labour policy to renew it even though it's well known that Corbyn is personally against renewal. You said that on this a Labour government under Corbyn would be "driving with the handbrake on" over renewal - which I took to mean you thought Corbyn would find ways to delay the implementation of the Trident renewal. Which is something I would agree with - the priority of a new government should be trying to get the UK out of the total mess the Tories have left us (eg: sort out a form of Brexit that won't wreck everything, invest in the NHS, schools, social care, public transport, affordable and social housing, etc) rather than waste money on a massive white elephant. That would still be the case even if I thought we needed a nuclear deterrent (which we don't need).
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Sterling is on the slide in the financial markets this morning as a result of new polling showing that it could be a hung parliament on the 9th June....

Wonder how David Cameron is feeling at the moment?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.

Swings and roundabouts. First time in years that mine have been.
Sadly I believe as far as spending on public services, the NHS, etc go, Labour's manifesto is somewhere to the right of Blair. The NHS costs have risen by about 4% a year since it was founded. Labour are promising 2% which is generous only by comparison with the Tories.

No doubt this is down to the double standards in the media whereby Labour must first show they're not going to tax or borrow anything before they're given a hearing, while the Conservatives can fritter money away like they're an eighties lottery winner.

ETA: you could both have what you want if we didn't have First Past the Post which is a shoddy excuse for an electoral system.

[ 31. May 2017, 08:20: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Jeremy Corbyn seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.

The childcare policy has been costed in the manifesto. I don't see that politicians should be under an obligation to memorise every figure in their manifesto. I wouldn't want them trying to make those kinds of decisions without the actual figures in front of them.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The NHS costs have risen by about 4% a year since it was founded. Labour are promising 2% which is generous only by comparison with the Tories.

A significant part of which in recent years has been down to decimation of social care. I don't think any of the parties are doing enough to reverse that and put in place resources to provide the best care for the elderly - which in almost all cases will not be in hospitals.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Otherwise explain why you feel the need to dig up and argue about a year old post.

You dug up a slander - sorry, attack with a "slightly over-broad brush" from the year old leadership contest. As I said, I wasn't persuaded. Such attacks have all the credibility of a Tory election poster on Labour or a Daily Mail leader on Brexit.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sterling is on the slide in the financial markets this morning as a result of new polling showing that it could be a hung parliament on the 9th June....

Wonder how David Cameron is feeling at the moment?

The most recent polls (ie, today) show as follows:

Con: 43 - 45
Lab: 33 - 37
LD: 8 - 9
UKIP: 4-5

The polls over the last fortnight have shown the Tory lead reducing considerably. However, there are reasons to believe the polls aren't accurate.

1. Younger people are harder to poll: they tend not to respond to surveys. Those who have been polled are overwhelmingly for Labour, however, they are less likely to turn out to vote.

2. Older people are becoming harder to poll: they tend to be Tory.

As an interesting aside, if the most recent polls were published with the weighting used in 2015, they would have shown more support for Labour with Corbyn at the helm than any did for Miliband. It seems that Corbyn may be quite popular with the public after all.

I can't see any alternative to a Tory win, however, unless the polls have once again underestimated Tory support, it won't be a landslide.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sterling is on the slide in the financial markets this morning as a result of new polling showing that it could be a hung parliament on the 9th June....

Wonder how David Cameron is feeling at the moment?

I can't be sure, but I doubt he's feeling much in the way of guilt or regret for having plunged the Country into a decade or more of chaos, confusion and economic slump. Nor will he be regretting his precipitous resignation; he'd probably been planning a lucrative post-No.10 career for some time, and must have realised that the 2015 election was the zenith of his political life.

Cameron is of a type we see far too often in politics and in working life, a dilettante who moves serenely from disaster to catastrophe and who always gets the opportunity to cause more mayhem because he projects an aura of supreme self-confidence which takes in gullible recruiters and voters. This aura is derived from a misplaced conviction of his own brilliance, which it would never occur to him to question.

AIR he originally got the job because he gave his hustings speech at the Tory conference without notes, something which always impresses the easily-impressed. The Tory membership then had a "Blair moment" and saw a shortcut back to power by picking a young leader with a nice smile.

I'll vote for a grizzled old socialist every time, thanks.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Cameron is of a type we see far too often in politics and in working life, a dilettante who moves serenely from disaster to catastrophe and who always gets the opportunity to cause more mayhem because he projects an aura of supreme self-confidence which takes in gullible recruiters and voters. This aura is derived from a misplaced conviction of his own brilliance, which it would never occur to him to question.

[Overused] ISTR he originally decided to be PM because he thought he'd 'be rather good at it'.

[ 31. May 2017, 09:25: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I'm waiting for serious attempts to show that the Tory proposals are any better than Labour's. Any bloody good at all TBH. So far, they aren't within a mile, when you hear of them.

It's a clear instance of "Keep politics out, keep the Tories in".
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
Corbyn is doing the debate. So far, May is not. There is no good way to spin this for the Tories so far, so their only hope of not looking like May is running scared is for Corbyn to tank. Will be interesting.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Corbyn is doing the debate. So far, May is not. There is no good way to spin this for the Tories so far, so their only hope of not looking like May is running scared is for Corbyn to tank. Will be interesting.

The Conservatives are putting home secretary Amber Rudd up. I'm surprised they haven't gone for Boris Johnson, who for all his buffoonery is a good performer, and is part of the Brexit team, which is of course what the Conservatives want the whole thing to be about.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Corbyn is doing the debate. So far, May is not. There is no good way to spin this for the Tories so far, so their only hope of not looking like May is running scared is for Corbyn to tank. Will be interesting.

The Conservatives are putting home secretary Amber Rudd up. I'm surprised they haven't gone for Boris Johnson, who for all his buffoonery is a good performer, and is part of the Brexit team, which is of course what the Conservatives want the whole thing to be about.
Good grief no! The last thing the Conservatives want is their lack of progress made clear to the electorate. They are playing a very low-key campaign for the very reason that they have done nothing and can do nothing.

[ 31. May 2017, 12:30: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I can't see any alternative to a Tory win, however, unless the polls have once again underestimated Tory support, it won't be a landslide.

I'm wondering whether it might be. These tight polls will encourage Tory voters to actually go out and vote and if one is the sort of Labour voter who hates Corbyn I'm not sure how that view would've changed over the past weeks. Part of me still thinks that the Conservatives could win 50-55% of the vote next week.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm waiting for serious attempts to show that the Tory proposals are any better than Labour's. Any bloody good at all TBH. So far, they aren't within a mile, when you hear of them.

It's a clear instance of "Keep politics out, keep the Tories in".

It's a kind of anti-politics, depending on personal attacks and the supposed presidential allure of the leader. This has not worked at all, since May herself looks ill at ease and gauche, but still, I expect the Tories to win. What strange times we live in. Well, we got through he Thatcher years. More or less.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, we got through he Thatcher years. More or less.

We did, but we are all still paying the price [Tear]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote: