After Eddie's rather embarassing thrashing in the last election, the Labour ship seems to be going down in flames, with three of the New Labour types desperately trying to grab the helm of the Old Labourite that's come smashing onto the bridge. It's actually rather embarassing really, I find, and indicative of what Labour has come to.
So do you believe that Corbyn should win leadership? Do you think his policies are viable? Do you consider the next election unwinnable with him in? Does that even matter?
I'm of the opinion that Corbyn winning leadership is the best thing that could happen long term for the Labour party. Why? Because I feel that New Labour has forgotten what the word 'principle' means. Everything and anything is up for auction so long as it wins them power, and people have now cottoned onto that fact. I personally believe that regardless of what tosh Kendall and Cooper shout about Corbyn being unelectable, they are far more unelectable than he. New Labour is done for in the eyes of the voters. What's more, as a left winger, Corbyn taking over could allow Labour to steal back some of the steam from SNP. I don't think they have the ability to do so otherwise, Scotland feels so betrayed the New Labour elite.
With regards to Corbyns policies, I believe that simply saying 'he wants to drag us back to the 1970's' is a disingenuous way of trying to dismiss him. The economy and the social makeup is different to the 1970's. His policies may or may not work (it's hard to say), but there's definitely scope for discussion and debate.
I predicted at the end of the last election that Labour would need to find out who they were again before they could pose a serious challenge to the Tories, and that process has begun. I see the possible outcomes as:-
1. Corbyn will lose the leadership challenge, and Labour will lose the next election. They will then go through this process again with another old-school Labourite.
2. Corbyn will win the leadership challenge, and Labour loses the next election. Corbyn will most likely have purged (in true old school fashion) the iron grip the New Labour faction has on the party as best he is able by then, and his successor will have an open playing field on the direction he wants to take the party.
3. Corbyn wins Leadership and general election. Interesting times ensue.
Corbyn's alright, I guess. He's the least likely to be a lizard, at least.
Labour, regardless of leadership, has been run into the rocks and is going to have to try to get back into the running. I doubt it'll win 2020, regardless of who's at the helm/
Honestly, this leadership election has just been amusing for me. It went from Corbyn stating he wouldn't win to him having over 50% of the vote, and a sort of frenzied tirade of spittle and, somehow, tedium about how Labour will become literally worthless and that people won't vote for the most popular candidate (somehow).
My opinion is basically that Corbyn (or another principled left-wing politician) is the only hope that Labour have if they want to survive as a party. Nobody will vote for another Blairite, we've learnt that lesson already. Personally, I think outcome 2 is the most likely.
The most popular candidate with Labour party members.
That said, anyone who doesn't win their own party nomination doesn't get a shot at an election anywa.
I basically agree with Ketara. My only niggle is that Milliband wasn't totally hopeless. He actually increased Labour's share of the vote in 2015 compared to 2010, but because of losing so much in Scotland they could not challenge.
If Corbyn helped Labour in Scotland which is almost certain, it will help Labour a lot at Westminster too.
However, the Tories have four years for the economy to pull round and start to benefit the majority of the people again. If this happens, they will win in 2020, unless the welfare state is so gutted by then that even middle class people are worried about healthcare, pensions and so on.
At any rate I believe the New Labour project is largely finished and discredited.
Secondly, Corbyn might want to talk about nationlisation and so on but I don't think that is likely to happen. I think it's establishing a more socialist direction for the party that will be used to reverse some of the cuts in social welfare that have been forced through in the past five years.
I'm of the opinion that Corbyn winning leadership is the best thing that could happen long term for the Labour party. Why? Because I feel that New Labour has forgotten what the word 'principle' means. Everything and anything is up for auction so long as it wins them power, and people have now cottoned onto that fact. I personally believe that regardless of what tosh Kendall and Cooper shout about Corbyn being unelectable, they are far more unelectable than he. New Labour is done for in the eyes of the voters. What's more, as a left winger, Corbyn taking over could allow Labour to steal back some of the steam from SNP. I don't think they have the ability to do so otherwise, Scotland feels so betrayed the New Labour elite.
Sums up my thoughts exactly. Corbyn actually seems to have some conviction, and some idea of what the Party's roots and whole raison d'etre is, Left Wing (as opposed to 'a few mm Left of a vaguely defined Centre'), which is more than can be said for the others.
Going to close to the centre and the willingness to sell anything for power is what killed the LibDems over the last term, Labour doing the same is just about the most disastrous thing that could happen in UK politics.
Quite honestly, the Labour Party could take a fair few hints from the SNP, both in policy and in how they operate.
Corbyn's leadership will be a disaster for the Labour party. In fact, it's a sign of how low Labour have sunk, that somebody like Corbyn is the frontrunner.
Years ago, Corbyn would have been your average Labour MP with views and policies that Labour endorsed.
In recent years, Blair and Brown abandoned those principals, and Labour have been trying to out Tory the Tories. That's why Corbyn seems radical, when he's about as radical as sliced bread.
He reminds Labour what they used to be, when 30 years ago, his views would have barely batted an eyelid in the party.
Lots of people seem to be projecting their left-wing fantasies onto Corbyn, when in reality, he's never been a minster or held a shadow post. And his discipline is notoriously bad - he could find it hard to command loyalty when he's showed little himself, in the past.
If Corbyn wins, we can expect the following:
Civil War in the Labour party
His leadership undermined by his enemies (Blairites) leaking stuff to the right wing press to undermine him.
Hostile reaction from most newspapers
And probably a hostile reaction from an English electorate that has shifted to the Right these past 30 years.
Corbyn is unlikely to win back voters in Scotland, as he's made no secret of his support for the Union, despite supporting Irish unification.
Lots of people seem to be projecting their left-wing fantasies onto Corbyn, when in reality, he's never been a minster or held a shadow post. And his discipline is notoriously bad - he could find it hard to command loyalty when he's showed little himself, in the past.
I agree with this to an extent. He's never held Government office, even a small portfolio, and that lack of experience could harm him were he to win power.
But the flip side of the coin is that none of them bar Burnham/Cooper have got any real experience any more (and they were decidedly junior). So whoever they pick, Labour will run into this problem. That's not so much an issue with Corbyn as it is the paucity of talent within Labour. I mean, Kendall's only been an MP for one term before this one for crying out loud.
If Corbyn wins, we can expect the following:
Civil War in the Labour party
His leadership undermined by his enemies (Blairites) leaking stuff to the right wing press to undermine him.
This I can also see. Old school Labourites don't tend to put up with open dissension in the ranks any more than New Labour does though, Labour has historically always been a bit Stalinist. I have a sneaky feeling that these disturbances wouldn't last long before he boots every New Labourite back out the door. With the amount of dirty laundry the like of Andy Burnham have, he should be able to whip them far more effectively than he himself was ever whipped.
I actually think that if Corbyn wins, Burnham will fall in with him as best possible anyway, it'll be Cooper/Kendall/Umunna that try and make waves.
Hostile reaction from most newspapers
And probably a hostile reaction from an English electorate that has shifted to the Right these past 30 years.
This I'm afraid I don't agree with. Depending on how badly the Tory sleaze gets over the next decade or so (and it always does get pretty bad towards the end), I think trying to predict the press and electorate isn't wise (as the pollsters just found out).
Corbyn is unlikely to win back voters in Scotland, as he's made no secret of his support for the Union, despite supporting Irish unification.
This I wholeheartedly disagree with, on the basis that being a Unionist does not preclude popularity in Scotland. All of the SNP's voters are not Separatists, they just see the SNP as doing the best possible thing for Scotland. A revitalised left wing Labour could pose a challenge to the SNP.
Let's remember that although SNP won 95% of the seats in Scotland, they only won 50% of the votes, while at the referendum they won only 45% of the votes.
It follows that the SNP not only is not as popular in Scotland as might be supposed from the number of seats they hold, but also that a significant people voted for them in the general election from political rather than nationalist motives.
If those people are ex-Labour voters, who drifted away because of disillusion with right-wing New Labour, they should be tempted back by the New New Old Labour with a more left-wing stance.
Kilkrazy wrote: Let's remember that although SNP won 95% of the seats in Scotland, they only won 50% of the votes, while at the referendum they won only 45% of the votes.
It follows that the SNP not only is not as popular in Scotland as might be supposed from the number of seats they hold, but also that a significant people voted for them in the general election from political rather than nationalist motives.
If those people are ex-Labour voters, who drifted away because of disillusion with right-wing New Labour, they should be tempted back by the New New Old Labour with a more left-wing stance.
Long term, I agree that Labour could pose a threat again to the SNP, due to electoral cycles (after all, the SNP have been in power for 8 years) but short term? It's only going to get worse for Labour in Scotland due to the following reasons:
1) They are desperately short of money. In the past, they relied on Scottish MPs diverting funding/wages to fill the coffers. Having only 1 MP in Scotland has turned a bad financial situation in a catastrophe, as this money has dried up.
2) The SNP has around 100,000 members compared to the generous estimate of Labour only having 15,000 members. That is a massive imbalance. Labour are desperately short of people in Scotland who are willing to post leaflets, knock on doors during elections, hold meetings etc etc the bread and butter stuff of elections.
3) Scottish Labour, quite frankly, is a shambles, and due to the popularity of Nicola Sturgeon and the slick campaign team the SNP have up here, May 2016's Scottish Parliament elections are only going to result in another SNP landslide. Only a major, major, scandal of epic proportions can derail the SNP before May 2016.
4) People are sick to the back teeth of Labour. They ruled up here for 60 years, and the stories of corruption and cronyism in the West of Scotland, are shocking.
Lots of people seem to be projecting their left-wing fantasies onto Corbyn, when in reality, he's never been a minster or held a shadow post. And his discipline is notoriously bad - he could find it hard to command loyalty when he's showed little himself, in the past.
I agree with this to an extent. He's never held Government office, even a small portfolio, and that lack of experience could harm him were he to win power.
But the flip side of the coin is that none of them bar Burnham/Cooper have got any real experience any more (and they were decidedly junior). So whoever they pick, Labour will run into this problem. That's not so much an issue with Corbyn as it is the paucity of talent within Labour. I mean, Kendall's only been an MP for one term before this one for crying out loud.
If Corbyn wins, we can expect the following:
Civil War in the Labour party
His leadership undermined by his enemies (Blairites) leaking stuff to the right wing press to undermine him.
This I can also see. Old school Labourites don't tend to put up with open dissension in the ranks any more than New Labour does though, Labour has historically always been a bit Stalinist. I have a sneaky feeling that these disturbances wouldn't last long before he boots every New Labourite back out the door. With the amount of dirty laundry the like of Andy Burnham have, he should be able to whip them far more effectively than he himself was ever whipped.
I actually think that if Corbyn wins, Burnham will fall in with him as best possible anyway, it'll be Cooper/Kendall/Umunna that try and make waves.
Hostile reaction from most newspapers
And probably a hostile reaction from an English electorate that has shifted to the Right these past 30 years.
This I'm afraid I don't agree with. Depending on how badly the Tory sleaze gets over the next decade or so (and it always does get pretty bad towards the end), I think trying to predict the press and electorate isn't wise (as the pollsters just found out).
Corbyn is unlikely to win back voters in Scotland, as he's made no secret of his support for the Union, despite supporting Irish unification.
This I wholeheartedly disagree with, on the basis that being a Unionist does not preclude popularity in Scotland. All of the SNP's voters are not Separatists, they just see the SNP as doing the best possible thing for Scotland. A revitalised left wing Labour could pose a challenge to the SNP.
I welcome a left-wing alternative top Cameron and Osborne, but it's hard to see beyond Corbyn as another Michael Foot - well meaning, but ultimately doomed to fail. I fully expect to see him stabbed in the back by his own party and the right-wing papers having a field day with leaked material.
Sadly, 2020, and I know it's an eternity in politics, is looking like another Tory victory
Unless of course the Tories implode over Europe, which is not unlikely
He will at least make Labour decide what they are. The issue IMO is that they are fighting too much between the left and the center. New Labour did well by being centralist. Suddenly everyone was wanting to proclaim there working classness even though they were clearly middle class. They were the party of the faux socialist. Those same people are now voting Tory for the same reason they did in the 80's. It is now becoming cool among the middle classes to proclaim how up and coming you are. How hard you work and how your business (even if you are not even self employed) relies on you and you need to work 60 hour weeks to make it.
I don't like Corbyn at all.. I don't think he is good for the country, but when the other options are wishy washy socialists who are not actually centralist enough to be new labour or him then I think he is the best thing for the party.
Hopefully Labour going hard left and Torys going more and more right will result in the Lib Dems sorting themselves out and getting back some of the voters. It may take a while for some people to forgive them though, and many people seem upset that they were in power with the Torys still.
I'm hooked on this debate! My fiancee is sick of listening to me going on about it
I like Corbyn. Not all of his policies make sense (re-opening the coal mines for example is a bit deluded), and he's certainly stuck in the past, but I do think he's got principles, honesty and compassion.
I find the foreign policy criticisms quite funny - people giving out that he spoke to Hamas or the IRA or whoever. They don't give Blair the same stick, and he's spoken to all the same people. Dialogue is how you end conflict.
But what has really stood out to me is the underhandedness and the vitriol, of the control freak New Labour establishment. They are a disgrace. And the Guardian has dropped all the notches in my estimation. I never was a huge fan, finding it's journalists to be the sort of left winger I find annoying (more about champagne socialism and feel good liberalism than economic justice). But christ almighty if the campaign and their dirty smears against Corbyn haven't shown them up for the absolute rag that they are. I sincerely hope it costs them money.
Edit: Although I am quite hopeful about it all - I think the thread is misnamed. It's an explosion of support they're having, not an implosion. 600,000 new interested people is a great thing for any political party.
I think they will try to bring him down as leader pretty soon after he's elected, and that might be the death of Labour as it stands, but it might need to die to let something better in in it's place.
unless the election is postponed because of all of 'these evil tory infiltrators', and this seems to be as much of an issue for some of the other candidates 'evil people who are planning to vote for Corbyn'
even if it is postponed and more purging of the voters happens I think he's still got a good shot at winning although if it hits 2nd preferences Burnham might be a slight threat
I hope his win will make labour think about what principals they want to have (beyond 'we must win the next election, no matter what') and
even if this does result in another general election loss (I think it would) it will be worth it.... he should at least regain some Scottish seats which I can't see any of the other 3 doing, and without Scottish seats Labour is really unlikely to win a first past the post election in the UK anyway
I want at least 2 clear choices in a general election, and with they way things have been going its been less and clear there are
Da Boss wrote: I'm hooked on this debate! My fiancee is sick of listening to me going on about it
I like Corbyn. Not all of his policies make sense (re-opening the coal mines for example is a bit deluded), and he's certainly stuck in the past, but I do think he's got principles, honesty and compassion.
I find the foreign policy criticisms quite funny - people giving out that he spoke to Hamas or the IRA or whoever. They don't give Blair the same stick, and he's spoken to all the same people. Dialogue is how you end conflict.
But what has really stood out to me is the underhandedness and the vitriol, of the control freak New Labour establishment. They are a disgrace. And the Guardian has dropped all the notches in my estimation. I never was a huge fan, finding it's journalists to be the sort of left winger I find annoying (more about champagne socialism and feel good liberalism than economic justice). But christ almighty if the campaign and their dirty smears against Corbyn haven't shown them up for the absolute rag that they are. I sincerely hope it costs them money.
Edit: Although I am quite hopeful about it all - I think the thread is misnamed. It's an explosion of support they're having, not an implosion. 600,000 new interested people is a great thing for any political party.
I think they will try to bring him down as leader pretty soon after he's elected, and that might be the death of Labour as it stands, but it might need to die to let something better in in it's place.
The title 'implosion' was more to do with the internal party implosion and squabbling, not the people voting.
I am pleasantly surprised so far to find that practically everyone is of a reasonably similar frame of mind on the whole thing to myself. Makes for a nice change!
But what has really stood out to me is the underhandedness and the vitriol, of the control freak New Labour establishment.
I think Old Labour wasn't particularly better in that respect, the Labour Party has always had somewhat stalinist tendencies to internal dissent. I think that what we're seeing here though, is the desperation of what political climbers are left in the Labour party. If Corbyn gets in, there'll all be out on their ears, possibly never to re-emerge. And for a professional politician, that's a horrifying prospect. So they're banding together for their own survival to try and tear him down.
I wonder if any of them have, even for just a moment, considered that if so many people are rooting for Corbyn, he might be the way forward, or actually have policies people are interested in. Because from what I can tell, they're so blinded by their own hubris that they believe they know what is best for the party and country, even if everyone else (i.e. the democratic majority) disagrees with them.
Da Boss wrote: RE: The New Labour careerists - Nail, on the head, someone call an ambulance.
I won't miss them. If it takes another ten years of Tory rule for the Labour and Lib Dem parties to get their stuff together and sort out serious policies/principles again, then bring on the Tories I say. God forbid they can't be any worse than Liz Kendall or Chuka Umunna in power. I don't like Tories much, but I'll take them any day over the Labour careerists.
Da Boss wrote: RE: The New Labour careerists - Nail, on the head, someone call an ambulance.
I won't miss them. If it takes another ten years of Tory rule for the Labour and Lib Dem parties to get their stuff together and sort out serious policies/principles again, then bring on the Tories I say. God forbid they can't be any worse than Liz Kendall or Chuka Umunna in power. I don't like Tories much, but I'll take them any day over the Labour careerists.
You might want 10 more years of Tory rule, but some of us would prefer a knee to the groin rather than suffer 10 more years of George Osborne, or heaven forbid, Boris Johnson
unless the election is postponed because of all of 'these evil tory infiltrators', and this seems to be as much of an issue for some of the other candidates 'evil people who are planning to vote for Corbyn'
even if it is postponed and more purging of the voters happens I think he's still got a good shot at winning although if it hits 2nd preferences Burnham might be a slight threat
I hope his win will make labour think about what principals they want to have (beyond 'we must win the next election, no matter what') and
even if this does result in another general election loss (I think it would) it will be worth it.... he should at least regain some Scottish seats which I can't see any of the other 3 doing, and without Scottish seats Labour is really unlikely to win a first past the post election in the UK anyway
I want at least 2 clear choices in a general election, and with they way things have been going its been less and clear there are
Even without the Scottish seats, Blair would have won those elections. It's a myth that Labour need Scotland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm hooked on this debate! My fiancee is sick of listening to me going on about it
I like Corbyn. Not all of his policies make sense (re-opening the coal mines for example is a bit deluded), and he's certainly stuck in the past, but I do think he's got principles, honesty and compassion.
I find the foreign policy criticisms quite funny - people giving out that he spoke to Hamas or the IRA or whoever. They don't give Blair the same stick, and he's spoken to all the same people. Dialogue is how you end conflict.
But what has really stood out to me is the underhandedness and the vitriol, of the control freak New Labour establishment. They are a disgrace. And the Guardian has dropped all the notches in my estimation. I never was a huge fan, finding it's journalists to be the sort of left winger I find annoying (more about champagne socialism and feel good liberalism than economic justice). But christ almighty if the campaign and their dirty smears against Corbyn haven't shown them up for the absolute rag that they are. I sincerely hope it costs them money.
Edit: Although I am quite hopeful about it all - I think the thread is misnamed. It's an explosion of support they're having, not an implosion. 600,000 new interested people is a great thing for any political party.
I think they will try to bring him down as leader pretty soon after he's elected, and that might be the death of Labour as it stands, but it might need to die to let something better in in it's place.
I don't get how Corbyn believes in Irish unification but not Scottish Independence, or even more powers for Scotland. He seems dead against even a federal settlement for the UK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: He will at least make Labour decide what they are. The issue IMO is that they are fighting too much between the left and the center. New Labour did well by being centralist. Suddenly everyone was wanting to proclaim there working classness even though they were clearly middle class. They were the party of the faux socialist. Those same people are now voting Tory for the same reason they did in the 80's. It is now becoming cool among the middle classes to proclaim how up and coming you are. How hard you work and how your business (even if you are not even self employed) relies on you and you need to work 60 hour weeks to make it.
I don't like Corbyn at all.. I don't think he is good for the country, but when the other options are wishy washy socialists who are not actually centralist enough to be new labour or him then I think he is the best thing for the party.
Hopefully Labour going hard left and Torys going more and more right will result in the Lib Dems sorting themselves out and getting back some of the voters. It may take a while for some people to forgive them though, and many people seem upset that they were in power with the Torys still.
Yeah, I've noticed that change as well. In the early days of the Blair years, everybody wanted to be working class. Now the working class is seen as an embarrassment.
I don't think Labour will be in government for a long time after the thrashing they received in the election. I think there's a distinct lack of talent in the New Labour camp. I also think Corbyn, if elected Labour leader will struggle to control the party as a good number of them don't like his old fashioned ideas.
angelofvengeance wrote: I don't think Labour will be in government for a long time after the thrashing they received in the election. I think there's a distinct lack of talent in the New Labour camp. I also think Corbyn, if elected Labour leader will struggle to control the party as a good number of them don't like his ideas.
The boundary changes favour the Tories and make it much harder for a Labour win in England, which is all you need to win a UK election.
BUT
Who knows what will happen to the Tories over the EU referendum. The Tories have a habit of tearing themselves to bits over Europe, and Dave only has a small majority. A Tory backbench rebellion could damage him big time and allow Labour to capitalise.
Da Boss wrote: RE: The New Labour careerists - Nail, on the head, someone call an ambulance.
I won't miss them. If it takes another ten years of Tory rule for the Labour and Lib Dem parties to get their stuff together and sort out serious policies/principles again, then bring on the Tories I say. God forbid they can't be any worse than Liz Kendall or Chuka Umunna in power. I don't like Tories much, but I'll take them any day over the Labour careerists.
You might want 10 more years of Tory rule, but some of us would prefer a knee to the groin rather than suffer 10 more years of George Osborne, or heaven forbid, Boris Johnson
If Boris Johnson gets in as Tory Leader , I will change my mind quicker than an atom goes around the LHC. But I don't see May or Osborne letting him anywhere near it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...his discipline is notoriously bad - he could find it hard to command loyalty when he's showed little himself, in the past.
I think that's part of the charm, more than anything.
Anyway, I think people need to remember that it won't be him in charge of everything. He's more a figurehead than anything, a face to put on the party. Granted, the party will change, but if it goes to ruin it won't entirely be his fault.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most popular candidate with Labour party members.
That said, anyone who doesn't win their own party nomination doesn't get a shot at an election anywa.
I basically agree with Ketara. My only niggle is that Milliband wasn't totally hopeless. He actually increased Labour's share of the vote in 2015 compared to 2010, but because of losing so much in Scotland they could not challenge.
If Corbyn helped Labour in Scotland which is almost certain, it will help Labour a lot at Westminster too.
However, the Tories have four years for the economy to pull round and start to benefit the majority of the people again. If this happens, they will win in 2020, unless the welfare state is so gutted by then that even middle class people are worried about healthcare, pensions and so on.
At any rate I believe the New Labour project is largely finished and discredited.
Secondly, Corbyn might want to talk about nationlisation and so on but I don't think that is likely to happen. I think it's establishing a more socialist direction for the party that will be used to reverse some of the cuts in social welfare that have been forced through in the past five years.
Two quick comments re Scotland;
1. In fact, even if Labour had taken every Scottish seat, nevermind just the same number the had before, they still would have lost to the Tories, because Scotland doesn't magically gain an extra 16 seats if we vote Labour(indeed, Scottish seats have almost never been crucial to a government majority in the UK, England elects the UK government as it always has, simply by virtue of having the largest population). I've seen the argument made that fear of the SNP generated by media scares contributed to Labour's losses in England, but the reality is that a combination of Labour's relentless policy triangulation & abdication of the political narrative on austerity/neoliberal "economics", the much longer running campaign in the media to undermine Miliband's credibility(which, lets be honest, wasn't nearly as difficult for them as it should have been), and UKIP voters returning to the Tories in droves in those seats where voting UKIP might allow in Labour/LDs(thus threatening the best chance of getting what they want most; the in-out EU referendum) were the main factors in the Tories' narrow victory.
2. While Corbyn would no doubt be a start on changing Labour's fortunes up here, he'll struggle to make a dent in the SNP's new expanded voter base beyond "honeymoon polls" unless a few other things happen as well, chief amongst them him actually leading Labour if he wins the election, which is by no means certain given the party is presently giving every impression that they're trying to rig the vote with their McCarthyist purge of "entryists" which looks to be disproportionately kicking out Corbyn supporters or lefties who'd be likely to back Corbyn(some even after they've already voted for him), not to mention MP's openly talking of forming "resistance movements" or insisting there will be an immediate coup by the PLP if he wins.
Even assuming his opponents grow a sense of proportion and accept defeat gracefully though, Corbyn-led Labour has a way to go yet up here. For one, he's saddled with the truly abysmal Scottish Labour MSPs, who are by turns vacuous placemen, faceless nobodies, bitter & angry anti-Nats who have no ideas beyond "SNP BAD!", and well-meaning incompetents. For another, he's taken the stance that further devolution is unnecessary, but polling consistently shows that people up here do want more. The best case scenario at the moment, barring any colossal scandal involving the SNP, is that they claw back enough Holyrood seats to force the SNP into a minority government or coalition(unlikely on present polling) and nudge things just far enough to make FPTP work for them again at WM elections.
If I sound like I'm being negative about Corbyn, I'm not. Despite his fairly typical Labour "I'm a socialist not a unionist" unionism and vague antipathy towards further devolution, I very much agree that he's pretty much the only chance UK Labour have of becoming relevant again, and if we could take the whole apparatus of the British state(FPTP, Lords, reckless military adventurism, the totally unaccountable "chumocracy" that exists between high level politicians, businessmen, & civil servants etc) out of the equation, I'd very likely be a supporter. As it stands though, for me, I won't be voting for UK parties again unless either the SNP feth up so badly they cease to be an option, or the UK as a system undergoes the reforms it desperately needs IMO; a fair & representative voting system, the abolition of the House of Lords(and ideally, but I'm realistic enough to not make it a dealbreaker, the monarchy too), and media regulation that preserves press freedom and public interest journalism but which still has the necessary teeth to deal with the current predatory sensationalist corporate outfits.
Whether I'm alone or not we'll have to see, but I'd caution against seeing a new leader as a magic bullet for Labour in Scotland, not so long ago you'll recall lots of people believed Jim Murphy would slay the SNP dragon, and he lost his seat along with 39 of his colleagues - Corbyn is going to have to do a lot more than merely win the leadership if he's to be a major factor in revitalising Labour in Scotland.
Steve steveson wrote: He will at least make Labour decide what they are. The issue IMO is that they are fighting too much between the left and the center. New Labour did well by being centralist. -snip-
In fact Labour lost substantial vote share at every election after Blair's first(and lets be honest, a donkey in a red rosette could have won in '97 given the clapped-out scandal-, sleaze-, and EU-backbiting-ridden state of the Tory party of the day), close to 8 million lost voters by the time of Brown's final defeat IIRC. New Labour "centralism" gained them crowing adulation from affluent middle-class media mouthpieces, wealthy pop-stars, and leftie London professionals, and of course the Tories(who were tickled-pink that Labour's leadership had bought Thatcher's "there is no alternative" line on neoliberalism), but it drove their real voter base - the people the party needs to win elections because of course all the middle-class "centralists" drifted back to the Lib Dems or the Tories in the end - into cynicism-induced apathy.
Blair and his cabal have very nearly destroyed the Labour party, whether it survives, or indeed whether it deserves to survive, we shall see.
Labour decided that they had to chase the centre to win, and the that's all they did to the detriment of the left. Now all these Blairites do is talk about winning. They don't seem to understand that voting disillusion is a result of the electorate not being offered choice. That and the attitudes of New Labour are engrained among those runners and they're convinced that anything else won't work, not that it's won them the last two elections. People my generation have never been offered a choice of a firmly left wing government, it's been decades. Prior to new labour was years of Thatcher and Major.
I think Corbyn has every chance of winning actually. But he needs a credible stance on immigration which will definitely be a big issue next election with thousands trying to force through boarders across Europe and right on our doorstep having somehow travelled across all Europe. Cameron says they are 'swarming' which is exactly what you can call hundreds of people charging the fences and tunnels in Calais each night and yet labour leaders wag their finger and tell him off for using words like 'swarming'. People have had enough of the perception that labour is soft on immigration. If Corbyn or anyone else is half-hearted on immigration they won't be elected.
I'm of the opinion that Corbyn winning leadership is the best thing that could happen long term for the Labour party. Why? Because I feel that New Labour has forgotten what the word 'principle' means. Everything and anything is up for auction so long as it wins them power, and people have now cottoned onto that fact. I personally believe that regardless of what tosh Kendall and Cooper shout about Corbyn being unelectable, they are far more unelectable than he. New Labour is done for in the eyes of the voters. What's more, as a left winger, Corbyn taking over could allow Labour to steal back some of the steam from SNP. I don't think they have the ability to do so otherwise, Scotland feels so betrayed the New Labour elite.
Sums up my thoughts exactly. Corbyn actually seems to have some conviction, and some idea of what the Party's roots and whole raison d'etre is, Left Wing (as opposed to 'a few mm Left of a vaguely defined Centre'), which is more than can be said for the others.
Going to close to the centre and the willingness to sell anything for power is what killed the LibDems over the last term, Labour doing the same is just about the most disastrous thing that could happen in UK politics.
Quite honestly, the Labour Party could take a fair few hints from the SNP, both in policy and in how they operate.
It was Nick Clegg that killed the lib dems not the centre ground
I sympathise with Corbyn's principals but I doubt he'll get the chance to implement them
Labour - the country - needs Corbyn to win. Like him or not, agree with him or not, he's the only alternative to a list of candidates whose script consists of "We do everything the Tories do, but we do it with a nicer smile. So vote for us because we're not Tories."
Democracy doesn't work if everybody is doing the same thing.
Corbyn might only last a few months before the Labour party trips over itself and runs another leadership election, but it's going to be the most entertaining few months we've seen in a while.
As to the Tories, if they can keep it together for three or four years then they should win 2020 regardless of what Labour do. After that I expect them to regress into their natural, atavistic, nasty party ways of infighting and back stabbing.
My view as an outsider, and with only passing knowledge of UK politics, is that Labour needs to stop running away from the Blair years. Yes, he was all kinds of prat, but the UK actually did pretty well while he and Brown ran the show. The one issue I do know is debt, where the performance of the UK under Blair and Brown was nothing as dire as the popular perception.
This kind of thing seems to be a fate of most centrist governments, once they lose power. The other side of parliament keeps hammering them, and the now defeated party tries to back away from the defeated and on the nose government as quick as possible.
sebster wrote: My view as an outsider, and with only passing knowledge of UK politics, is that Labour needs to stop running away from the Blair years. Yes, he was all kinds of prat, but the UK actually did pretty well while he and Brown ran the show. The one issue I do know is debt, where the performance of the UK under Blair and Brown was nothing as dire as the popular perception.
This kind of thing seems to be a fate of most centrist governments, once they lose power. The other side of parliament keeps hammering them, and the now defeated party tries to back away from the defeated and on the nose government as quick as possible.
Tony Blair is still pretty toxic in the UK, more so for the company he keeps these days with various dictators the world over. If I were Labour, I would keep running away from the Blair years.
The UK might have done pretty well under Blair, Sebster, but its economic foundations were made of sand, and far from ending the boom and bust economic cycles, we're worse off now than in those years, due to their financial ineptitude.
I think people forget, and for those outside the UK might just be unaware, that when we rolled into Iraq a second time on the GWB bandwagon, it very nearly topped the government and brought Blair down. The majority were against it, there were huge protests across the country and his own party were revolting against him in the ranks.
Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.
Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.
This. I have no love for the Tory gits, but my god, I'd do some self mutilation before I vote labour in again. Also, people forget Broon's, er, contribution to the whole debacle. That individual was a spiteful, mean spirited toxic arse and the country is infinitely better off without him anywhere near a position of power.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I think people forget, and for those outside the UK might just be unaware, that when we rolled into Iraq a second time on the GWB bandwagon, it very nearly topped the government and brought Blair down. The majority were against it, there were huge protests across the country and his own party were revolting against him in the ranks.
Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.
For me, the tragedy of the Labour party is that they had one of the biggest majorities in British history, had more cash than nearly any other government in British history, and took office during a time of economic nirvana. With those 3 elements, they could have made Britain a special place to live.
They could have brought in a bullet-proof living wage, sorted the housing crisis, repealed some of the worst excesses of the Tory's trade union laws, scrapped the Lords, given us a written constitution, given us an elected upper house, built critical infrastructure and gave us a federal system that probably would have killed Scottish nationalism for ever.
Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.
This. I have no love for the Tory gits, but my god, I'd do some self mutilation before I vote labour in again. Also, people forget Broon's, er, contribution to the whole debacle. That individual was a spiteful, mean spirited toxic arse and the country is infinitely better off without him anywhere near a position of power.
Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.
This. I have no love for the Tory gits, but my god, I'd do some self mutilation before I vote labour in again. Also, people forget Broon's, er, contribution to the whole debacle. That individual was a spiteful, mean spirited toxic arse and the country is infinitely better off without him anywhere near a position of power.
Thirded. New Labour was all smoke and mirrors. Even by increasing taxes and riding a wave of economic prosperity, they didn't have the money for all the cash they splashed, and Blair and Brown both had crippling God complexes. Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies. New Labour turned into a 'What can I announce to get a new headline' party, and that was as far as they ever thought anything.
I mean, Christ, you listen to them now, 'If you vote Corbyn, we'll be un-electable!' Since when was politics about being elected above all else? Labour mutated into a bunch of champagne faux-socialists who view a sniff of power as their highest priority, and you can thank Blair and Brown for that.
Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies
Points and laughs at Ketara
In my lifetime, the only Tory policies I've ever seen are get yourself and your friends rich at the nation's expense (privatization) and bash the workers.
Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for the Labour leadership looks unstoppable after some genuinely dreadful people came out against him.
Tony Blair was the first truly awful person to really stand up against him.
In a studio interview the former ‘Ugly Rumours’ bassist and war-criminal called for all supporters of Corbyn to have their hearts cut out of their bodies, a strategy it is understood he first planned for all supporters of Gordon Brown during his time as Prime Minister.
This was followed by John McTernan making equally strong comments against Mr Corbyn, which everyone ignored until they remembered that he was chief of Staff to Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy. A man who’s performance in Scotland was worse than Edward the First.
Yesterday Alistair Campbell, or as he’s better known; Satan, recommended the Labour party adopted an ‘Anyone but Corbyn’ strategy, failing to recognise that Ed Miliband was ‘anyone but Corbyn,’ and that could have worked out better.
Jeremy Corbyn’s team are naturally thrilled at this.
“Well, it’s brilliant,” said a Corbyn insider.
“If someone could organise Gordon Brown or Ed Balls to have a go at Jeremy then I don’t think we’d even have to bother campaigning anymore.”
“But we’d probably do it anyway to annoy Tony Blair.”
Corbyn is going to get utterly torn to shreds if* he gets the job for loads of reasons, but mainly the following;
1) He's not exactly the worlds best debater. It's one thing to spend 30 years speaking at anti-war, left-wing protests and so on -- where everyone agrees with you - and quite another to stand in front of Cameron and 300 jeering Tories every Wednesday. He can't even handle a few relatively soft ball questions from TV hacks without spluttering.
2) He's spent decades hanging around with some very, very unsavoury sorts. Every kook, crank and loon he's shared a platform with will be dug up (and you'll have notice the Tories have been keeping their powder dry on this) and thrown back at him. IMO, this alone should have been reason enough for him to never have been allowed on the ballot. It's an infantile, student-union form of politics that utterly unbecoming of a statesman.
3) His economic ideas are ludicrous. 'Peoples Quantitative Easing' (aka money printing), nationalising industry, and his fantasy figures on tax evasion.
There's a reason Kinnock, John Smith and Blair took their party towards the centre - and it's not because they're moustache twirling, top-hatted robber barons it's because they realised you can't implement policies as a ideologically pure, but permanent, opposition.
*And I don't think it's certain. Not after the polling balls up in May, which had a far greater dataset than the few polls for the Labour leadership.
Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies
Points and laughs at Ketara
In my lifetime, the only Tory policies I've ever seen are get yourself and your friends rich at the nation's expense (privatization) and bash the workers.
In that, they are remarkably consistent.
Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.
So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.
Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.
Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies
Points and laughs at Ketara
In my lifetime, the only Tory policies I've ever seen are get yourself and your friends rich at the nation's expense (privatization) and bash the workers.
In that, they are remarkably consistent.
Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.
So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.
Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.
I gave a simplified response, because I was in a rush for a bus, but now that's I've got time on my hands, a more detailed response will be forthcoming
The idea that the Tories are a party of Adam Smith, free market, low government etc etc might have been true years ago, but is total hogwash in this day and age.
it was Conservative governments under Heath, Major, and ironically, Thatcher, that pushed us into further integration with Europe, and all the resulting bureaucracy that followed.
On the subject of bureaucracy, the DWP are expanding at a rate of knots as Duncan Smith's crackdown on benefit claimants speeds up.
On the subject of personal liberty - the Tories have done nothing to repeal the intelligence community's powers to spy on ordinary Britons, the Tories and Labour are one and the same on this, and by all accounts, it seems to be increasing. Let us not forget, that it was a Tory, Boris Johnson, who introduced water cannons into London.
They've done nothing for democracy in regards to scrapping the Lords and replacing it with an elected senate. In fact, only the other week, the Tories stuffed the lords with new peers, some of whom had been donating to the Tory party.
For a party of personal liberty, their opposition to a proper, written constitution is utterly baffling.
With regard to privatization, they are dead against state control of industry, but are happy to allow EON, a French company owned by the French government to operate in Britain, and a company owned by the Dutch government to operate Scotland's railways.
And of course, when Royal Mail was flogged, the public footed the bill for Royal mail pensions, and George Osborne's best mate walked away with millions when the shares floated...
People rightly say that the Labour party is a hollow shell of what it used to be, but so too are the Tories. As the saying goes, Labour and Conservatives are two cheeks of the same ass!
PS
Still waiting for the Tories to build those new homes they promised to build when they allowed people to buy their council houses in the 1980s
Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.
So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.
Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.
Yeah, I'd broadly agree with this. The modern Tory party is a mix of various different factions - the anti-EU-ers, old school Thatcherites, the Cameron/Osborne metropolitan liberal wing, etc. Frankly I'm surprised Camerons managed to keep this lot, relatively organised. Everyone keep predicting that they are going to start smashing into themselves over the EU, but I don't think it's going to happen myself.
But, by and large, they've largely purged their party of the real nutters.
Some of the more...ahem.. enthusiastic Corbynistas argue that there's this large, untapped section of the electorate ready to elect in an old school Left Wing government. Ain't gonna happen! And the more realistic say that winning elections isn't all that matters (indeed, we've had that very argument in this thread), but what's the point of being a political party if you don't want to govern? Just become a debating society and be done with it.
I gave a simplified response, because I was in a rush for a bus, but now that's I've got time on my hands, a more detailed response will be forthcoming
The idea that the Tories are a party of Adam Smith, free market, low government etc etc might have been true years ago, but is total hogwash in this day and age.
it was Conservative governments under Heath, Major, and ironically, Thatcher, that pushed us into further integration with Europe, and all the resulting bureaucracy that followed.
Europe was viewed as more of a way of securing trade and business standards between nations in Britain originally . The legislation-spewing, nation-eroding behemoth it has become, and even more importantly, the perception of it as such is a relatively recent phenomenon.
On the subject of personal liberty - the Tories have done nothing to repeal the intelligence community's powers to spy on ordinary Britons, the Tories and Labour are one and the same on this, and by all accounts, it seems to be increasing. Let us not forget, that it was a Tory, Boris Johnson, who introduced water cannons into London.
This is a very thorny issue (speaking as someone who wrote their undergrad dissertation on cyber-intelligence/warfare capabilities), and trying to boil it down to 'Government wants to watch you online' is a very simplistic view of things indeed.
As for water cannon, let us not forget it was Theresa May, another Tory, who told him to get rid of the things. That one's more of a hubris project of Johnson then it is related to any sort of party ideology. It's about as Tory-centric as the new buses or his vision of an airport in the Estuary.
They've done nothing for democracy in regards to scrapping the Lords and replacing it with an elected senate. In fact, only the other week, the Tories stuffed the lords with new peers, some of whom had been donating to the Tory party.
That's because they're outnumbered. It's a political necessity at the moment, as any attempt to reform the HoL will be voted down by them each time most likely, and dealing with it will spark off several conflicts within the party as the Lords pull strings. Cameron really doesn't want to have to deal with it right now (as he has his hands full with Europe).
For a party of personal liberty, their opposition to a proper, written constitution is utterly baffling.
That's a baffling link. I'm a person who believes strongly in personal liberty, but I'm happy without one. Quite frankly, I think America has shown how bloody stupid Constitutions can get, in several regards.
With regard to privatization, they are dead against state control of industry, but are happy to allow EON, a French company owned by the French government to operate in Britain, and a company owned by the Dutch government to operate Scotland's railways.
They're opposed to the British Government running things. Why would they be opposed to how other Governments choose to frame their links with business? It has nothing to do with them. As long as they're functioning as private enterprises within Britain, that's all the relevance it has to us.
And of course, when Royal Mail was flogged, the public footed the bill for Royal mail pensions, and George Osborne's best mate walked away with millions when the shares floated...
Yes, because the whole reason behind the sale of Royal Mail was so Osborne could make his mates a few quid....
*sighs*
This sort of reasoning makes me sad. You've just pulled half a dozen peripherally, or unrelated issues out and woven them together into an 'corrupt evil unprincipled Tories' tapestry.
Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.
So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.
Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.
Yeah, I'd broadly agree with this. The modern Tory party is a mix of various different factions - the anti-EU-ers, old school Thatcherites, the Cameron/Osborne metropolitan liberal wing, etc. Frankly I'm surprised Camerons managed to keep this lot, relatively organised. Everyone keep predicting that they are going to start smashing into themselves over the EU, but I don't think it's going to happen myself.
But, by and large, they've largely purged their party of the real nutters.
Some of the more...ahem.. enthusiastic Corbynistas argue that there's this large, untapped section of the electorate ready to elect in an old school Left Wing government. Ain't gonna happen! And the more realistic say that winning elections isn't all that matters (indeed, we've had that very argument in this thread), but what's the point of being a political party if you don't want to govern? Just become a debating society and be done with it.
It's true that the most hard core eurosceptics have joined UKIP, and thus acted as a pressure value, which has helped Cameron. Even I agree to that, but if you think the Tories are quiet over Europe, you ain't seen nothing yet!
I lived through the John Major years, and it was not pretty.
I gave a simplified response, because I was in a rush for a bus, but now that's I've got time on my hands, a more detailed response will be forthcoming
The idea that the Tories are a party of Adam Smith, free market, low government etc etc might have been true years ago, but is total hogwash in this day and age.
it was Conservative governments under Heath, Major, and ironically, Thatcher, that pushed us into further integration with Europe, and all the resulting bureaucracy that followed.
Europe was viewed as more of a way of securing trade and business standards between nations in Britain originally . The legislation-spewing, nation-eroding behemoth it has become, and even more importantly, the perception of it as such is a relatively recent phenomenon.
On the subject of personal liberty - the Tories have done nothing to repeal the intelligence community's powers to spy on ordinary Britons, the Tories and Labour are one and the same on this, and by all accounts, it seems to be increasing. Let us not forget, that it was a Tory, Boris Johnson, who introduced water cannons into London.
This is a very thorny issue (speaking as someone who wrote their undergrad dissertation on cyber-intelligence/warfare capabilities), and trying to boil it down to 'Government wants to watch you online' is a very simplistic view of things indeed.
As for water cannon, let us not forget it was Theresa May, another Tory, who told him to get rid of the things. That one's more of a hubris project of Johnson then it is related to any sort of party ideology. It's about as Tory-centric as the new buses or his vision of an airport in the Estuary.
They've done nothing for democracy in regards to scrapping the Lords and replacing it with an elected senate. In fact, only the other week, the Tories stuffed the lords with new peers, some of whom had been donating to the Tory party.
That's because they're outnumbered. It's a political necessity at the moment, as any attempt to reform the HoL will be voted down by them each time most likely, and dealing with it will spark off several conflicts within the party as the Lords pull strings. Cameron really doesn't want to have to deal with it right now (as he has his hands full with Europe).
For a party of personal liberty, their opposition to a proper, written constitution is utterly baffling.
That's a baffling link. I'm a person who believes strongly in personal liberty, but I'm happy without one. Quite frankly, I think America has shown how bloody stupid Constitutions can get, in several regards.
With regard to privatization, they are dead against state control of industry, but are happy to allow EON, a French company owned by the French government to operate in Britain, and a company owned by the Dutch government to operate Scotland's railways.
They're opposed to the British Government running things. Why would they be opposed to how other Governments choose to frame their links with business? It has nothing to do with them. As long as they're functioning as private enterprises within Britain, that's all the relevance it has to us.
And of course, when Royal Mail was flogged, the public footed the bill for Royal mail pensions, and George Osborne's best mate walked away with millions when the shares floated...
Yes, because the whole reason behind the sale of Royal Mail was so Osborne could make his mates a few quid....
*sighs*
This sort of reasoning makes me sad. You've just pulled half a dozen peripherally, or unrelated issues out and woven them together into an 'corrupt evil unprincipled Tories' tapestry.
It makes perfect sense to me!
I hope you're not confusing me for some diehard Labour voter, because as far as I'm concerned, Labour are just as big a disgrace as the Tories. It's increasingly difficult to separate the two parties, in the way you could years ago. I'm no fan of the Tories, but at least years ago, Tories were Tories, and Labour was Labour. You knew where you stood with regard to ideology.
As for personal liberty I'm not simplifying things, and in fairness to Cameron, Labour were no better, but the Conservatives are happy to go along with current surveillance powers, and wouldn't bat an eyelid at increasing them. Of course, all governments are like this, but let's not pretend the Tories are a party of liberty. They, and Labour, are nothing of the sort.
As for Osborne's mates making money - it's all about perception. It looks bad, and makes the government look corrupt, even if it wasn't Osborne's intentions to enrich his friends.
With regards to privatization, it's double standards to allow foreign governments to own British companies, but the Tories to be against British ownership.
We all know what privatizations means in this country. They keep the profits, and when they need a bailout in the bad times, the taxpayer foots the bill. That's not private enterprise, that's state subsidy in another form.
I admit that the use of the word evil, verges on hyperbole, but when you read about disabled people being sent work assessment forms asking them if they can work (one guy with down's syndrome can't even speak, read, or write, but still got a form) then it's difficult not to portray the Tories as selfish gits.
It's true that the most hard core eurosceptics have joined UKIP, and thus acted as a pressure value, which has helped Cameron. Even I agree to that, but if you think the Tories are quiet over Europe, you ain't seen nothing yet!
I lived through the John Major years, and it was not pretty.
Oh, I've no doubt I could be spectacularly wrong on this, but my hunch (real scientific) is that they'll bitch and moan but most of them will fall in line.
Honestly, part of me thinks that Labour might be done. They've been coasting on empty for years now, political parties only exist as long as they represent a notable part of the electorate. If they do spend the next few years plotting/backstabbing each other and we get a modern version of the SDP and a rump labour full of Citizen Smith types at least it'd end this interminable debate about who's PROPER labour and who's a fifth column saboteur.
None of this would be happening if there was a mainstream candidate who was worth their salt. Burnham, Cooper and the other one are 3rd rate careerist hacks. Burnham especially.
It's true that the most hard core eurosceptics have joined UKIP, and thus acted as a pressure value, which has helped Cameron. Even I agree to that, but if you think the Tories are quiet over Europe, you ain't seen nothing yet!
I lived through the John Major years, and it was not pretty.
Oh, I've no doubt I could be spectacularly wrong on this, but my hunch (real scientific) is that they'll bitch and moan but most of them will fall in line.
Honestly, part of me thinks that Labour might be done. They've been coasting on empty for years now, political parties only exist as long as they represent a notable part of the electorate. If they do spend the next few years plotting/backstabbing each other and we get a modern version of the SDP and a rump labour full of Citizen Smith types at least it'd end this interminable debate about who's PROPER labour and who's a fifth column saboteur.
None of this would be happening if there was a mainstream candidate who was worth their salt. Burnham, Cooper and the other one are 3rd rate careerist hacks. Burnham especially.
Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*
That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?
*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.
Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*
That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?
*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.
I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!
Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*
That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?
*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.
I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!
50:50 on Tories, but all of the Lib Dems (who? ) were stuck-up gakkers. It's strange, you'd have thought it would be the other way around!
I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!
Yeah, say what you will about Corbyn (and I will -- at length!) but he's at least capable of talking to the peasants like a normal human being.
Ed Milliband - when forced to interact with the scum - often had a look of barely contained terror on his face. I half expected him to burst into tears.
Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*
That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?
*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.
I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!
50:50 on Tories, but all of the Lib Dems (who? ) were stuck-up gakkers. It's strange, you'd have thought it would be the other way around!
I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!
Yeah, say what you will about Corbyn (and I will -- at length!) but he's at least capable of talking to the peasants like a normal human being.
Ed Milliband - when forced to interact with the scum - often had a look of barely contained terror on his face. I half expected him to burst into tears.
Yeah, there was a few images from the GE when he had to talk to the peasants. He looked terrified
I'm never even going to consider voting for Labour until they purge all the Old Guard of former New Labour ministers. There are still far too many of them in senior positions in the party for my liking. Harriet Harman for one. Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper etc (is she a candidate?). So roll on a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet! It'll be good to see the back of new labour once and for all.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm never even going to consider voting for Labour until they purge all the Old Guard of former New Labour ministers. There are still far too many of them in senior positions in the party for my liking. Harriet Harman for one. Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper etc (is she a candidate?). So roll on a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet! It'll be good to see the back of new labour once and for all.
It may be politically expedient of him to retain one or two of them, if only to appease the Blairites and stop them from stabbing him in the back.
Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*
That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?
*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.
I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!
50:50 on Tories, but all of the Lib Dems (who? ) were stuck-up gakkers. It's strange, you'd have thought it would be the other way around!
I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!
Yeah, say what you will about Corbyn (and I will -- at length!) but he's at least capable of talking to the peasants like a normal human being.
Ed Milliband - when forced to interact with the scum - often had a look of barely contained terror on his face. I half expected him to burst into tears.
Yeah, there was a few images from the GE when he had to talk to the peasants. He looked terrified
I met Alan Milburn once former health minister) on an A Level politics trip to Parliament. Was years ago, so I don't remember much, and i didn't speak to him (I kept quiet and didn't contribute much) but he seemed like a nice chap. My mom who works in an NHS PCT had a high opinion of him too.
We also got a guided tour of the House of Commons! Wouldn't let us sit on the benches though. And It's surprisingly tiny.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm never even going to consider voting for Labour until they purge all the Old Guard of former New Labour ministers. There are still far too many of them in senior positions in the party for my liking. Harriet Harman for one. Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper etc (is she a candidate?). So roll on a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet! It'll be good to see the back of new labour once and for all.
Well I admire your dedication to The Cause chap, but a Corbyn cabinet isn't exactly going to be crammed full of political viagra. Read somwhere (might have been the speccie) that Corbyn had about 20 MP nominations from people who actually supported him, so he doesn't have a bottomless pool of talent to drawn from. And some of the others have said they will refuse to serve in a Corbyn shadow cab. Going to be interesting to see how he's going to square that circle.
Who knows - maybe there's a whole generation of promising young bucks waiting for their moment to shine? But he's going to have a hell of a task leading his party - even if he utterly smashes it in the first round of the vote most of his MPs don't want him as leader.
I hope you're not confusing me for some diehard Labour voter, because as far as I'm concerned, Labour are just as big a disgrace as the Tories. It's increasingly difficult to separate the two parties, in the way you could years ago. I'm no fan of the Tories, but at least years ago, Tories were Tories, and Labour was Labour. You knew where you stood with regard to ideology.
On this, we agree. I think the Tories have shuffled more towards the Liberal end, and Labour says anything to anyone for a vote. I don't believe you're some hardcore Labourite, but at the same time, I feel you're conflating/simplifying a lot of issues in such a way as to skew/ignore certain facts. So for example:-
As for personal liberty I'm not simplifying things, and in fairness to Cameron, Labour were no better, but the Conservatives are happy to go along with current surveillance powers, and wouldn't bat an eyelid at increasing them. Of course, all governments are like this, but let's not pretend the Tories are a party of liberty. They, and Labour, are nothing of the sort.
Cyber-intelligence/warfare capabilities (which is what you mean when it comes surveillance, I'm presuming) is an incredibly recent, and complicated field. I have a good friend in the Defence Studies Institute at King's College who specialises in this department, and the morality of mass surveillance, and the methods for doing so are quite murky and intricate. When many academics who devote all their time to trying to codify and unravel these things have yet to make much headway into it, I'm really not surprised that the politicians and lawmakers are content to let the status quo stand, especially when it's not a pressing political issue.
But in your eyes, that neglect is proof of how they're a party against 'personal liberty'. To look for another example here:-
As for Osborne's mates making money - it's all about perception. It looks bad, and makes the government look corrupt, even if it wasn't Osborne's intentions to enrich his friends.
I'm currently examining in depth the early twentieth century armaments industry in Great Britain, and the relationships between private companies and the Government. If you pull out half a ton of literature produced over a forty year period by disarmament campaigners, you have them all brandishing proof as to how an MP is on a directors board for a steel firm, or an Admiral is good friends with the owner of a shipbuilding company as evidence that the whole thing is corrupt, and designed to put money into the pockets of rich industrialists.
But where I'm sitting, with the evidence from both sides of the fence (personal correspondence, official minutes, and many other things these campaigners had no access to), the Government makes the industrialists run ragged, and corruption/personal benefit is next to non-existent. Now whilst I'm not saying that's 100% the case today, what I'm trying to illustrate is that it's very easy to point to circumstantial facts in this sort of thing, and jump to conclusions (Private Eye does it for a living). But it isn't really proof of anything when you really get down to it.
The Tories are rich boys, which means they have rich connections, and because they're all influential, they tend to stay in contact with other influential people. That's as true a hundred years ago as it is now. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, is what I'm getting at.
With regards to privatization, it's double standards to allow foreign governments to own British companies, but the Tories to be against British ownership.
I completely disagree on this point, I'm afraid. In fact, from a certain perspective, it means foreign governments are bankrolling our companies, so our own doesn't have to! Money saved!
We all know what privatizations means in this country. They keep the profits, and when they need a bailout in the bad times, the taxpayer foots the bill. That's not private enterprise, that's state subsidy in another form.
It depends. Yes for things like banks and power. No for things like steel and coal. That's why there's a decent argument for the state retaining certain industries/levers, but not others. Which is where corbynomics is now coming in.
I admit that the use of the word evil, verges on hyperbole, but when you read about disabled people being sent work assessment forms asking them if they can work (one guy with down's syndrome can't even speak, read, or write, but still got a form) then it's difficult not to portray the Tories as selfish gits.
You're talking about the ATOS debacle right? Because that sorry story has several sides. It was a stupid thing to outsource, and a stupid thing to push, but I don't think if you sat Osborne down and said, 'Are you trying to make disabled people unable to survive' he'd say, 'Damn straight!' I don't think he'd be thinking it either.
I think the main problem the Tories suffer from is that they often have no real perspective as to how their actions impact on the populace, because they've led such sheltered lives (for the top cadre at least). They think they do, but they don't, and that's half the problem.
I can't say I'm a huge fan of Blair, but when you look at some of the things that happened under his premiership, things like minimum wage, freedom of information act, devolution for Scotland and Wales, civil partnerships, the good Friday agreement, ban on fox hunting... There is a lot of good stuff. I don't agree with many of the economic decisions, especially with regards to deregulation of financial institutions. Though perhaps that was more Brown's doing. I think the real problem with the Blair government was Iraq. The decision to go to war was hugely unpopular, and it felt like the people didn't get a say in it. I think that's what really soured feelings towards the labour government. I thought that the coalition government had been annoying enough for labour to bounce back, and I think it actually was, but it seems like the Tories won the election at a local level. I really feel that the voting system in the UK needs reform, but the last time it came up it wasn't the type of reform anyone wanted.
I'm in a hurry again, Ketara, so I'll save the lengthy reply for tomorrow, but one thing I don't get about the UK economy, and economics in general is this:
for example, If I owe you £100, and I'm trying to boost the economy or pay off the deficit, then how does myself borrowing £100 from person X, so I can pay you off, reduce debt or boost the economy?
How does getting into more debt help pay off the debt?
Every government, be they Labour or Tory, these past 30 years, has done this. I'm scratching my head and I'm pretty sure I've asked somebody that before, on dakka.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm in a hurry again, Ketara, so I'll save the lengthy reply for tomorrow, but one thing I don't get about the UK economy, and economics in general is this:
for example, If I owe you £100, and I'm trying to boost the economy or pay off the deficit, then how does myself borrowing £100 from person X, so I can pay you off, reduce debt or boost the economy?
How does getting into more debt help pay off the debt?
Every government, be they Labour or Tory, these past 30 years, has done this. I'm scratching my head and I'm pretty sure I've asked somebody that before, on dakka.
What you're talking about could be referring to a number of economic levers, so I'll take a guess at which ones you might mean. If I'm wandering off on an unrelated tangent though, do forgive! What I suspect you're referring to is the basic concept of Keynesianism economics, which can be boiled down to a few principles relating to the above.
Essentially, the idea is that when an economy is in a recession, money gets tight. People lose their jobs which means they have less to spend, which means the shops start selling less. The more borderline ones close down, which causes more jobless people and less spending, and so on in a vicious circle. On a wider level, this spiral of unemployment means that banks start becoming less willing to lend money, because they suspect people will be less able to pay it back. This means they sit on their cash, which puts less money into circulation. The Government in turn, because people are making less money and more people are unemployed, receives less money in taxation, and has to fork out more cash on unemployment benefits, resulting on pressure on their budget.
If you have the above for a prolonged period of time, things can get quite grim (/understatement of century). Now if we were running the Government like I was my own wallet, I would look at the debt I already in, my falling income, greater outgoings, and think, 'Yikes! Time to buckle down and spend less money!' In a recession however, the Government doing so simply exacerbates the situation, as you now have even less jobs and employed people!
But, and this is the key, governments do not work like personal wallets. They have a number of financial levers by which they can operate. Because they have a good idea of what revenue will be coming in year by year, and their primary asset (the taxpayer) isn't going anywhere, banks are more willing to lend money to them in a way they wouldn't an individual. And if the banks get too leery anyway, the Government can pass all sorts of interesting laws to pull money from banks (although that causes other difficulties). So generally speaking, assuming a Government is operating in good faith and works hand in hand with the banks, the Government can extract whatever level of credit it requires at good rates.
So our Government (which is already in debt) will now borrow large sums of money from the banks, and invest that money. The usual target is infrastructure (roads, airports, houses, etc), but there can be others, such as education, start up grants for businesses, and so on. By spending that money now, you give someone a job, and with that job, they can start earning and spending again. It's the scenario I gave up above, but in reverse. By spending enough money, you can reverse the downward spiral, and start an upwards one. Quantitative easing (printing more money) also helps here.
Once the economy is doing well again, the Government will be receiving more money in taxation again thanks to the booming economy, their costs will be less because unemployment will have fallen, and they'll no longer have to invest large sums of money because the economy will be expanding. So now, they can use all this lovely new revenue to begin to pay back all of the debt that they borrowed, and reduce back down to a minimal state of government.
In such a way (theoretically), a Government already in debt can borrow money for a period of time, invest it to boost the economy, and then use the dividends of that investment to pay the debt off at a later date. There are plenty of complications, but that's the basics of Keynesian economic theory. Does that make sense?
Unfortunately, most governments skip the 'paying it back' stage, and even if they didn't, Keynesianism has taken quite a beating since the 1950's in several regards.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The UK might have done pretty well under Blair, Sebster, but its economic foundations were made of sand, and far from ending the boom and bust economic cycles, we're worse off now than in those years, due to their financial ineptitude.
Yeah, see, that's exactly the kind of public perception I'm talking about. As a nominal figure, the deficit in the UK in 2007 was fairly modest, and it's only through some whack-a-doo financial models that boffins end up concluding there was a serious structural deficit at that time. No-one in 2007 thought the UK was flourishing, let alone overheating. The large deficits after 2007 were due, fairly obviously, to the recession.
As to the claim of Labour waste over the term of their government - debt to GDP was lower in 2008 than it was when they took office in 1997, 42% reduced down to 37%.
The issue is that while conservatives hammered Labour on that point and others, including those you've mentioned, most of them are dubious at best. But Labour never tried to defend them, instead trying to move forward on to new territory. While in part this is understandable, as when you start trying to defend one or two specific points of legacy, then you end up having to defend everything including the indefensible (point out financial management wasn't that bad, and you'll soon be called on to defend the invasion of Iraq).
This is not a purely Labour phenomenon. A very similar thing happened in the US, with Reagan lauded and Carter villified, based on little history, but won because many Republicans want to make those arguments, while few Democrats want to challenge them. Nor is it purely a left wing thing to concede history, here in Australia the Labor Whitlam government seems to get credited with great new reforms every other week, wholly at odds with the history. But again it seems something Labor supporters want to talk about, and something Liberals supporters want to avoid, so they win the history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Essentially, the idea is that when an economy is in a recession, money gets tight. People lose their jobs which means they have less to spend, which means the shops start selling less. The more borderline ones close down, which causes more jobless people and less spending, and so on in a vicious circle.
This was a really good overall summary, but I just thought I'd pick you up on a few nitpicks.
If you have the above for a prolonged period of time, things can get quite grim (/understatement of century).
It isn't so much the time, but the severity of the downturn. All the factors in the downward spiral are typically offset by one thing - the interest rate. The imbalance of savings to investment driving the spiral also drives interest rates down, which works to encourage investment and discourage saving, which in most situations should restore economic balance. The problem comes when the imbalance is great enough to drive interest to zero and then need to keep going. Then interest rates can't stabilise and you need something else to balance things, and that's where fiscal policy comes in to play.
But, and this is the key, governments do not work like personal wallets. They have a number of financial levers by which they can operate. Because they have a good idea of what revenue will be coming in year by year, and their primary asset (the taxpayer) isn't going anywhere, banks are more willing to lend money to them in a way they wouldn't an individual.
There's never an issue of governments being good for the cash. For starters, funds are raised through central banks which are an (independant) arm of government). And second up, for countries like the UK where you print your own currency, you can't ever fail to make payments, as you can always print more money. That might raise market fears about future inflation, but no lender will worry about getting their money back.
The importance of government's role simply comes from its unique motivation and size. It's motivation is unique, as all other actors are looking out for their own financial position (leading to tragedy of the commons situations), while government is focused on overall economic health. And government is unique in size, as it alone has the scale of spending to reverse national trends.
Unfortunately, most governments skip the 'paying it back' stage, and even if they didn't, Keynesianism has taken quite a beating since the 1950's in several regards.
Sort of. One interesting thing to note is that while the common myth is that once you allow Keynesian spending it'll never stop, history tells us almost all governments are too quick to apply the brakes. But in general there is a tendency to left debt drift during the good times, that's true.
And the fightback against Keynesian economics was in the 1970s, 'we are all Keynesian now'. But with stagflation, which was somewhat the fault of some broadly Keynesian ideas, you had the rise of neo-classical economics, and even the political legitimisation of nonsense like the Austrians. What's sad is that neo-Keynesian models adapted very quickly to accurately model the spiral out of stagflation, far better than models founded on neo-classical micro foundations. Keynesian econ took the hit and adapted fast, but the narrative was already in place. 2008 should have seen a return to Keynesian dominance, as their models accurately predicted the continued low inflation, debt overhang and damage from austerity, while the classical models basically got everything wrong, and their only adaption has been to pretend they said something different (hyperinflation anyone?)
But politics is about more than being right, and lots of powerful people like what the classical economists are saying, even if it isn't true.
Anyhow, I thought you gave a really good summary. I just couldn't help my inner pedant
Sebster: Blair is in the main hated because of the Iraq war. Economics doesn't really come into it by much, he was losing millions of voters due to his leadership style, falseness and warmongering.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The UK might have done pretty well under Blair, Sebster, but its economic foundations were made of sand, and far from ending the boom and bust economic cycles, we're worse off now than in those years, due to their financial ineptitude.
Yeah, see, that's exactly the kind of public perception I'm talking about. As a nominal figure, the deficit in the UK in 2007 was fairly modest, and it's only through some whack-a-doo financial models that boffins end up concluding there was a serious structural deficit at that time. No-one in 2007 thought the UK was flourishing, let alone overheating. The large deficits after 2007 were due, fairly obviously, to the recession.
As to the claim of Labour waste over the term of their government - debt to GDP was lower in 2008 than it was when they took office in 1997, 42% reduced down to 37%.
The issue is that while conservatives hammered Labour on that point and others, including those you've mentioned, most of them are dubious at best. But Labour never tried to defend them, instead trying to move forward on to new territory. While in part this is understandable, as when you start trying to defend one or two specific points of legacy, then you end up having to defend everything including the indefensible (point out financial management wasn't that bad, and you'll soon be called on to defend the invasion of Iraq).
This is not a purely Labour phenomenon. A very similar thing happened in the US, with Reagan lauded and Carter villified, based on little history, but won because many Republicans want to make those arguments, while few Democrats want to challenge them. Nor is it purely a left wing thing to concede history, here in Australia the Labor Whitlam government seems to get credited with great new reforms every other week, wholly at odds with the history. But again it seems something Labor supporters want to talk about, and something Liberals supporters want to avoid, so they win the history.
...
...
I think UK Labour made a big mistake in allowing the Conservatives to dictate the false history of the country's economic state in the 2000s. Labour's key weakness has always been the general perception that the Tories are better at managing the economy. This simply isn't true if you look at the facts. Labour should have drilled down hard on that and established a reputation for economic competence.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think UK Labour made a big mistake in allowing the Conservatives to dictate the false history of the country's economic state in the 2000s. Labour's key weakness has always been the general perception that the Tories are better at managing the economy. This simply isn't true if you look at the facts. Labour should have drilled down hard on that and established a reputation for economic competence.
Da Boss wrote: Sebster: Blair is in the main hated because of the Iraq war. Economics doesn't really come into it by much, he was losing millions of voters due to his leadership style, falseness and warmongering.
Yeah, that's pretty much my point. Not wanting to defend Blair, Labour has then neglected to defend any part of the New Labour legacy. And that's actually left them in a really difficult spot. It's given the tories a free reign on bagging New Labour's economic policies, which in turn has made it much easier to justify their own very silly policies.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think UK Labour made a big mistake in allowing the Conservatives to dictate the false history of the country's economic state in the 2000s. Labour's key weakness has always been the general perception that the Tories are better at managing the economy. This simply isn't true if you look at the facts. Labour should have drilled down hard on that and established a reputation for economic competence.
Labour? Economically competent?
That's my point in a nutshell. You dismiss the idea instantly as a joke, but, if you would go and look into the economic data you would see they did a good job in the 2000s. Whereas if you look at the data from the Tory period that preceded New Labour there was plenty of woe and disaster brought on by their supposedly expert handling of things.
That's my point in a nutshell. You dismiss the idea instantly as a joke, but, if you would go and look into the economic data you would see they did a good job in the 2000s. Whereas if you look at the data from the Tory period that preceded New Labour there was plenty of woe and disaster brought on by their supposedly expert handling of things.
I'm not sure I buy Labour's supposed economic competence. From what I recall, yes the British deficit went into surplus after election in 1997, but that was after the Conservatives had already balanced the books, we were entering into an economic boom period, and Labour hiked taxes to boot. They then jacked up the spending beyond our means long before the global financial crisis hit, and we were running a deficit again, despite all that extra income.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm never even going to consider voting for Labour until they purge all the Old Guard of former New Labour ministers. There are still far too many of them in senior positions in the party for my liking. Harriet Harman for one. Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper etc (is she a candidate?). So roll on a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet! It'll be good to see the back of new labour once and for all.
Well I admire your dedication to The Cause chap, but a Corbyn cabinet isn't exactly going to be crammed full of political viagra. Read somwhere (might have been the speccie) that Corbyn had about 20 MP nominations from people who actually supported him, so he doesn't have a bottomless pool of talent to drawn from. And some of the others have said they will refuse to serve in a Corbyn shadow cab. Going to be interesting to see how he's going to square that circle.
Who knows - maybe there's a whole generation of promising young bucks waiting for their moment to shine? But he's going to have a hell of a task leading his party - even if he utterly smashes it in the first round of the vote most of his MPs don't want him as leader.
My opinion is those MPs can shut the feth up and do their jobs. If Corbyn gets elected leader then it means that those who support the Labour party want him as leader. So those MPs can either go along with that democratic decision or throw a tantrum and expose themselves as undemocratic imbeciles who can't stand that the people who they are meant to represent don't agree with their own personal viewpoint.
Didn't Brown sell off a big chunk of our gold reserves at a time of record low gold prices and at the height of an economic boom so he boost public spending even more, instead of reserving it for when the economy was poor and gold prices were high? (I.e. the 2008 crash).
Didn't we see public spending spending, taxes and the national debt skyrocket under Labour during an economic boom, leaving us poorly prepared for the financial crash? Austerity might not have been so long and painful if Labour hadn't "spent all the money" (in the words of one junior Labour minister).
Didn't Brown boast of ending boom and bust, and saving the world's banking system?
That's my point in a nutshell. You dismiss the idea instantly as a joke, but, if you would go and look into the economic data you would see they did a good job in the 2000s. Whereas if you look at the data from the Tory period that preceded New Labour there was plenty of woe and disaster brought on by their supposedly expert handling of things.
It is a joke. The economic data does not support your viewpoint.
I'm not saying that the Conservatives are never incompetent, but there is a worrying trend of conservative governments inheriting a poor economy from Labour and having to fix it, then Labour is Re-elected and rides on the success and good e comic conditions they inherit from the Conservatives.
We elect Labour when things are good, and we want high spending, and we elect the Conservatives when things are bad and need fixing.
......Labour fear the growth of a viable left-wing alternative party just as much as the Tories fear UKIP.The Labour leadership seem to think that attacking genuine left-wing parties and offering the electorate nothing more than "not quite as bad as the Tories" will be enough convince the public to vote them back into power in 2015. Even though they've experienced an opinion poll boost on the rare occasions they have offered anything even remotely radical, they're still intent on pushing a Thatcherism-lite agenda in the vain hope that the Tabloid press will take it easy on them. They haven't reailed that the Murdoch press and the Daily Mail will attack Labour whatever they offer, and that by attempting to suck up to the right-wing press, they're simply driving more and more left-wing people away from the Labour Party in exasperation.
So in answer to the question of what the Labour Party is for?The Labour Party has become nothing more than an empty power structure, so far divorced from its founding principles that it exists only to seek and maintain political power. The party leadership isn't driven by any objective other than the pursuit of power for its own sake. The Labour party strategists imagine that the only path to achieve this political power is through eschewing any kind of radical, progressive or left-wing policies, in favour of promoting a Thatcherism-lite agenda designed to appease the right-wing press, and by conning the public into voting for them with a few lame bits of pseudo-socialist window dressing.
However Corbyn and his allies really aren't old Labour. They are the same pseudo socialists who trample upon the parties post war legacy in order to get elected.
I'm not saying that the Conservatives are never incompetent, but there is a worrying trend of conservative governments inheriting a poor economy from Labour and having to fix it, then Labour is Re-elected and rides on the success and good e comic conditions they inherit from the Conservatives.
That's an interesting article, but either the author doesn't quite comprehend the facts he's throwing around, or he's misleading people in the way he's accusing others of doing. To take the first substantive paragraph:-
On the two occasions that Labour oversaw increases in the national debt as a percentage of GDP there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with global fallout from the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the last few years of the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (they left an 11% increase). The other Labour governments all reduced the scale of the national debt, Clement Attlee's government of 1945-51 reduced the national debt by 40% of GDP despite having to rebuild the UK economy from the ruins of the Second World War; Harold Wilson's 1964-70 government reduced the national debt by 27% of GDP; and even the Wilson-Callaghan government of 1974-79 managed to reduce the debt by 4% of GDP.
Firstly, the postwar period saw the debt to GDP slashed not because the Labour Government was spending less (far from it). It was because unemployment was exceptionally low right up until the 1970's, combined with a period of extreme economic growth. The result was rising real incomes, which equalled much higher Government revenues, knocking the debt to GDP figure right down.
Secondly, the more recent Labour Government may not have had to borrow much money up until the last five years, but as said above, this was because like in the period just mentioned, tax receipts were up and the economy was booming. This enabled them to jack up the spending without having to borrow as large sums as they might otherwise have had to do. To put it into figures, public spending in 2002 was 389.1 billion pounds, in 2006 it was 523.5 billion, and in 2010, it was 673.1 billion. For sake of comparison, when Blair took over in 97/98, public expenditure was 308.4 billion pounds.
So in other words, the factor that seems to be being generously left out by the author here is that greater borrowing was not required by these Labour Governments, because growing tax receipts and the economy were able to accommodate their breakneck spending rate to an extent. I mean, the last Labour Government literally doubled the running costs of the country over the period they were in charge. And that's fine to an extent, because if there's so much of a budgetary surplus there, no-one minds you spending it. But literally doubling the amount spent by Government is somewhat mind-boggling, and as we'll soon see, the money simply wasn't there in that quantity.
When we come to look at George Osborne's own record as Chancellor of the Exchequer it is an established fact that in his first 3 years as Chancellor, Osborne managed to add more to the national debt than the Labour Party did in the 13 preceding years.
By George Osborne's own estimates, the national debt will have grown by 26.9% of GDP between 2010 and 2015. If you want to check this for yourself, have a look at page 19 of the November 2010 OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook which records the debt to GDP ratio as 53.5% of GDP for 2009-10, and page 20 of the December 2014 OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook which records the debt to GDP ratio for 2014-15 as being 80.4%.
In the last 200 years of economic history there have only been three prolonged periods of debt accumulation worse than George Osborne's tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer: The First World War (+110% of GDP), the Second World War (+100% of GDP) and the tenure of Tory Chancellor Nicholas Vansittart 1812-1823 (+64% of GDP).
Having increased public sector debt by 26.9% in five years, George Osborne has undeniably created more new debt than any single Labour government in history ever has. In fact it's a bigger proportional increase in the national debt than all of the Labour governments in history combined.
The second paragraph, meanwhile, just fact walls you without attempting any kind of contextualisation of those facts. Let me take a stab at it.
Firstly, he's correct on account of the the level of National Debt having not been this bad in a long time. Here's the graph that shows the figures.
As you can see, there was a spike around John Major's Government in the early nineties, followed by a dip up until 2002. Then Labour, due to their rising spending costs (as mentioned above) simply weren't getting enough cash from the tax receipts to account for their increased expenditure. If you cross-reference again with their spending here:-
Spoiler:
you end up with this chart here which shows the government expenditure correlated with the tax receipts.
To summarise, around 2002, New Labour found that with a slightly decreasing tax receipts, there wasn't enough cash to keep covering their ever-expanding budget, and began borrowing to cover up the shortfall. When the financial crisis hit, and they started worrying about the next election, borrowing skyrocketed further still. In 2007, national debt stood at 527 billion pounds. By the time of the election, that total had hit, 956 billion. In other words, Mr Brown, in his short tenure, managed to almost borrow as much money as the UK state already owed.
So when Mr Osborne walked into the Treasury, he found Government expenditure more than double what it was in the previous Tory Government (whereas when Tony Blair walked in, the Government was running a surplus) and UK national debt at just under trillion pounds (as opposed to about 350 billion when Labour took over).
Now with the contextualisation added, I'd like to address the paragraph in the link before. He slates Osborne on account of how Osborne has added as much to the national debt in three years as the Labour party in the entire period beforehand. I'm going to explain why that is, but first, I want to draw your attention back to this graph posted earlier.
If you look closely (or even not so closely), you will see that the total sum of money borrowed compared to GDP has fallen constantly since the Conservatives took over, whilst revenue has more or less flatlined. Now the reason why Osborne has borrowed so much money is because Brown expanded the level of borrowing so far, that to simply cut it all in one go was impossible. The country was already in recession, the Liberal Democrats were insisting the cuts be made more slowly, and cutting to that depth instantly would most likely have damaged any form of recovery.
If the graph above follows it's natural trend, at some point in the next five years (as it supposedly the intent), the lines will intersect. That will mean we are making more money than the Government is spending, and Osborne's borrowing spree will have ended. But the fact is, Osborne was more or less economically forced to borrow those sums of money in order to match the interest now payable on the vast sums Brown borrowed, and to slowly run down Government expenditure without breaking the back of the economy (which if you follow Keynes as explained above, would most likely have happened).
You begin to see why I have little faith in New Labour when it comes to economics! It's one thing to shout at Osborne for making cuts, but to shout at him at the same time for borrowing too much money is counter-intuitive. After all, if he was just borrowing large sums of money, surely he wouldn't need to make cuts, right? The truth is, he had no choice but to keep borrowing money due to the absolute financial mess left by the previous government.
I'm not a fan of the Tories, but New Labour really was quite bad when it came to money. They spent and spent, and then borrowed to spend more long before the recession hit. So frankly, blaming the recession for their financial failings (as the link above did) is quite disingenuous!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The UK might have done pretty well under Blair, Sebster, but its economic foundations were made of sand, and far from ending the boom and bust economic cycles, we're worse off now than in those years, due to their financial ineptitude.
Yeah, see, that's exactly the kind of public perception I'm talking about. As a nominal figure, the deficit in the UK in 2007 was fairly modest, and it's only through some whack-a-doo financial models that boffins end up concluding there was a serious structural deficit at that time. No-one in 2007 thought the UK was flourishing, let alone overheating. The large deficits after 2007 were due, fairly obviously, to the recession.
As to the claim of Labour waste over the term of their government - debt to GDP was lower in 2008 than it was when they took office in 1997, 42% reduced down to 37%.
As I just demonstrated above, Labour spending was wildly out of control. The fact that they had a deficit was in and of itself a bad financial indicator, considering they had inherited balanced books, a booming economy, and soaring tax receipts. They had no need to spend such vast sums, and yet, they did.
That's why a lot of people don't trust them with the economy.
There's never an issue of governments being good for the cash.
Greece?
Jokes aside, I was trying to keep it simple and in laymans terms. Bringing in things like inflation and effects of quantitative easing seemed like a quick way to complicate things.
Sort of. One interesting thing to note is that while the common myth is that once you allow Keynesian spending it'll never stop, history tells us almost all governments are too quick to apply the brakes. But in general there is a tendency to left debt drift during the good times, that's true.
And the fightback against Keynesian economics was in the 1970s, 'we are all Keynesian now'. But with stagflation, which was somewhat the fault of some broadly Keynesian ideas, you had the rise of neo-classical economics, and even the political legitimisation of nonsense like the Austrians. What's sad is that neo-Keynesian models adapted very quickly to accurately model the spiral out of stagflation, far better than models founded on neo-classical micro foundations. Keynesian econ took the hit and adapted fast, but the narrative was already in place. 2008 should have seen a return to Keynesian dominance, as their models accurately predicted the continued low inflation, debt overhang and damage from austerity, while the classical models basically got everything wrong, and their only adaption has been to pretend they said something different (hyperinflation anyone?)
I'll be frank, the legitimacy of the Austrians and Milton Friedman in relation to Keynes is outside of my understanding of economics (or interest, to a large extent). Detailed macroeconomics and suchlike require a more mathematical head than I have, and lie beyond my studies in British industry (I'm looking at historical merger wave phenomena right now!)
Ketara wrote: The fact that they had a deficit was in and of itself a bad financial indicator, considering they had inherited balanced books, a booming economy, and soaring tax receipts. They had no need to spend such vast sums, and yet, they did.
But it wasn't a booming economy. No-one before 2008 was describing the UK economy as booming. Inflation was steady, unemployment was okay, and there were no calls for interest hikes to bring this boom back under control. It was bubbling along okay.
It's only because economic models, to describe the process really simply, pretty much describe optimum output as an average of previous years, that the severe downturn post GFC makes the pre-GFC weirdly get redefined as a booming economy.
But it wasn't, and so the expectation that Labour should have known it had an economy that would be reclassified as booming in hindsight, and so should have been saving is a real stretch.
I was trying to keep it simple and in laymans terms. Bringing in things like inflation and effects of quantitative easing seemed like a quick way to complicate things.
Yeah, and as I said your overall summary was excellent. It's just that I can't fight that inner pedant
I'll be frank, the legitimacy of the Austrians and Milton Friedman in relation to Keynes is outside of my understanding of economics (or interest, to a large extent). Detailed macroeconomics and suchlike require a more mathematical head than I have, and lie beyond my studies in British industry (I'm looking at historical merger wave phenomena right now!)
If you don't like detailed maths then you'll love the Austrians. You don't need complex maths or even ideas that actually work!
You write some good posts, but I fear you are overlooking the politicking of the Blair/Brown years.
Two points that I'd like to make;
1) Labour had a record of pishing away money on ill-conceived projects. The most notorious being a comprehesive IT scheme for the NHS that was a complete ballsup with a £12 billion price tag. Brown especially was fond of funding various wheezes that would give him a day or two of favourable headlines - Winter Fuel allowances for OAPs being one, fiddling around with the tax bands (making poorer people worse off in a classic case of 'We haven't thought this through') was another.
2) Ed Milliband defined himself by bascially saying "New Labour - that was a disaster wasn't it?", and then doing precisely bugger all to defend the good things that Blair and Brown had done, as well as making some blunders of his own. If the leadership won't defence their economic record why should the electorate have any confidence in them?
Which leads us directly to Corbyn and his supporters, who really, really hate the previous leadership of their own party. And have some fantastically silly economic ideas. 'Peoples Quantitave Easing' being particularly demented.
Ketara wrote: The fact that they had a deficit was in and of itself a bad financial indicator, considering they had inherited balanced books, a booming economy, and soaring tax receipts. They had no need to spend such vast sums, and yet, they did.
But it wasn't a booming economy. No-one before 2008 was describing the UK economy as booming. Inflation was steady, unemployment was okay, and there were no calls for interest hikes to bring this boom back under control. It was bubbling along okay.
It's only because economic models, to describe the process really simply, pretty much describe optimum output as an average of previous years, that the severe downturn post GFC makes the pre-GFC weirdly get redefined as a booming economy.
But it wasn't, and so the expectation that Labour should have known it had an economy that would be reclassified as booming in hindsight, and so should have been saving is a real stretch.
Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm not saying that the economy in 2007 just before the GFC was booming, that would be a clearly fradulent claim by the figures above. But up until 2003? It was doing really rather quite well. In 1997, when Blair took over, growth was at 2.6%. In 2003, it peaked at 4.3%. From there, it went downhill back to and levelled off around (roughly) around the 2.7% mark until the recession hit in 2007. But Labour spending? It kept increasing post 2002, out of all proportion to income. I've posted the charts above so you can see their ballooning expenditure in the 2002-2007 period, and their subsequent borrowing rate.
I'm not saying the Labour Government 'should have been 'saving'. There's nothing wrong with spending money that's in the kitty, and whilst not putting a little aside in anticipation of a global downturn because you believe you have 'eliminated boom and bust' is a bit silly, there's nothing inherently problematic with that.
What I am saying though, point blank, is that they went far beyond that. They were spending considerably beyond the means of the tax receipts they were gathering over a protracted period when they had no cause, reason, or need to do so long before the recession hit. And that they were having to to borrow ever larger sums to sustain this unnecessary spending. The data I have provided in my last post, in reasonable depth, confirms that viewpoint. In such I way I have substantiated the viewpoint of the last Labour Government as not being very good with money. If you have data that contradicts me, please do provide it, but this isn't a case of me just casually stating an opinion here, I've actually pulled out the figures to back it up.
You write some good posts, but I fear you are overlooking the politicking of the Blair/Brown years.
Two points that I'd like to make;
1) Labour had a record of pishing away money on ill-conceived projects. The most notorious being a comprehesive IT scheme for the NHS that was a complete ballsup with a £12 billion price tag. Brown especially was fond of funding various wheezes that would give him a day or two of favourable headlines - Winter Fuel allowances for OAPs being one, fiddling around with the tax bands (making poorer people worse off in a classic case of 'We haven't thought this through') was another.
2) Ed Milliband defined himself by bascially saying "New Labour - that was a disaster wasn't it?", and then doing precisely bugger all to defend the good things that Blair and Brown had done, as well as making some blunders of his own. If the leadership won't defence their economic record why should the electorate have any confidence in them?
Which leads us directly to Corbyn and his supporters, who really, really hate the previous leadership of their own party. And have some fantastically silly economic ideas. 'Peoples Quantitave Easing' being particularly demented.
The Tories record is equally as bad. Universal Credit is now predicted to cost £12.8billion and is also massively behind schedule, bit of an increase from the initial £2.2billion.
The Tories record is equally as bad. Universal Credit is now predicted to cost £12.8billion and is also massively behind schedule, bit of an increase from the initial £2.2billion.
We actually had Universal Credit, more or less, back in the eighties. New Labour abolished it, and split benefit payments into about eight different departments. So you get your housing benefit from one source, your working tax credits from another, and so forth. As someone who has parents who claim today, and who had to claim rather heavily under the previous system, they judged the previous system infinitely easier and less complex. You got one payment from one source, and that was it. Deductions and additions were made as appropriate, if you had a problem (which always happens), you spoke to that one source instead of spending months chasing different departments. So they're in favour of it going back. Because it was one payment, you had a local person to talk to, whereas now, you end up on five different phones, to five different call centres, none of which talk to each other, and cause you endless nightmares.
With regards to government big project fethups though, that happens for all of them. Bureaucracy can be a real nightmare, and giant IT projects are always problematic at the best of times.
Labour seems to be split between impotent wannabie-tories and back-to-the-1980's militant unionism. It's a shame that there's no real centre-ground there.
It was interesting watching Corbyn squirm on Panarama over his alleged links to Hezbolla and Hamas; he didn't deny it or say that it's all lies from the Daily Mail, he just said something along the lines of 'they were people who happend to be at the rallies.'
SDFarsight wrote: Labour seems to be split between impotent wannabie-tories and back-to-the-1980's militant unionism. It's a shame that there's no real centre-ground there.
It was interesting watching Corbyn squirm on Panarama over his alleged links to Hezbolla and Hamas; he didn't deny it or say that it's all lies from the Daily Mail, he just said something along the lines of 'they were people who happend to be at the rallies.'
Thing is, Hezbollah and Hamas are both political parties and paramilitary forces, often with large presences in their countries respective governments.
As such they will, for now at least, inevitably be part of the peace protest. Also, in the UK the political sections are not listed as terrorist organizations, only the military wing. You are not going to secure a peace in the area around Israel by ignoring them and you are not going to be able to remove them by purely military means as long as they maintain that support of the people.
So both Hezbollah and Hamas will be involved in any peace deal that will come in the near future. They will have to be, otherwise that deal will not work. It would be like if the UK had refused to acknowledge Sinn Fein due to its suspected links with the IRA.
SDFarsight wrote: Labour seems to be split between impotent wannabie-tories and back-to-the-1980's militant unionism. It's a shame that there's no real centre-ground there.
It was interesting watching Corbyn squirm on Panarama over his alleged links to Hezbolla and Hamas; he didn't deny it or say that it's all lies from the Daily Mail, he just said something along the lines of 'they were people who happend to be at the rallies.'
Thing is, Hezbollah and Hamas are both political parties and paramilitary forces, often with large presences in their countries respective governments.
As such they will, for now at least, inevitably be part of the peace protest. Also, in the UK the political sections are not listed as terrorist organizations, only the military wing. You are not going to secure a peace in the area around Israel by ignoring them and you are not going to be able to remove them by purely military means as long as they maintain that support of the people.
So both Hezbollah and Hamas will be involved in any peace deal that will come in the near future. They will have to be, otherwise that deal will not work. It would be like if the UK had refused to acknowledge Sinn Fein due to its suspected links with the IRA.
I don't know if this was just Panarama making association fallacies, but it looked like Corbyn was actively taking sides rather than truely looking for peace.
SDFarsight wrote: Labour seems to be split between impotent wannabie-tories and back-to-the-1980's militant unionism. It's a shame that there's no real centre-ground there.
It was interesting watching Corbyn squirm on Panarama over his alleged links to Hezbolla and Hamas; he didn't deny it or say that it's all lies from the Daily Mail, he just said something along the lines of 'they were people who happend to be at the rallies.'
Thing is, Hezbollah and Hamas are both political parties and paramilitary forces, often with large presences in their countries respective governments.
As such they will, for now at least, inevitably be part of the peace protest. Also, in the UK the political sections are not listed as terrorist organizations, only the military wing. You are not going to secure a peace in the area around Israel by ignoring them and you are not going to be able to remove them by purely military means as long as they maintain that support of the people.
So both Hezbollah and Hamas will be involved in any peace deal that will come in the near future. They will have to be, otherwise that deal will not work. It would be like if the UK had refused to acknowledge Sinn Fein due to its suspected links with the IRA.
I don't know if this was just Panarama making association fallacies, but it looked like Corbyn was actively taking sides rather than truely looking for peace.
The Labour leftists have associated with groups like Hezzbolah for years. I just think it has been popular with certain politicans to cosy up to such groups because the central party, the Tories, Americans (or whoever they can take a shot at to gain popularity) have deigned to align themselves with Israel (using Hezbollah as an example).
Its edgy to support the underdog you see.
Pistols at Dawn wrote: 1) Labour had a record of pishing away money on ill-conceived projects.
I think that describes every government that's ever existed. When you spend 600 to 700m, you're going to spend some of it very badly.
2) Ed Milliband defined himself by bascially saying "New Labour - that was a disaster wasn't it?", and then doing precisely bugger all to defend the good things that Blair and Brown had done, as well as making some blunders of his own. If the leadership won't defence their economic record why should the electorate have any confidence in them?
This is precisely my point
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm not saying that the economy in 2007 just before the GFC was booming, that would be a clearly fradulent claim by the figures above.
Okay, cool.
What I am saying though, point blank, is that they went far beyond that. They were spending considerably beyond the means of the tax receipts they were gathering over a protracted period when they had no cause, reason, or need to do so long before the recession hit. And that they were having to to borrow ever larger sums to sustain this unnecessary spending. The data I have provided in my last post, in reasonable depth, confirms that viewpoint. In such I way I have substantiated the viewpoint of the last Labour Government as not being very good with money. If you have data that contradicts me, please do provide it, but this isn't a case of me just casually stating an opinion here, I've actually pulled out the figures to back it up.
But you only get that spike by using 01/02 or 02/03 as a starting point, and assuming spending in those years was the normal, default amount. Go back to 96/97 and then you end up with a story where spending started at 40%, dropped, and then went up to 41%.
One of the ways of showing that Labour handling of the economy is worse than the Conservatives is to ignore the often terrible handling of the economy by the Conservatives.
The example was given of Brown selling off the gold at low prices. Recently the Royal Mail was sold off at low prices, and currently shares in various semi-nationalised banks are being sold off at low prices.
Historically the Conservatives have sold off an awful lot of public assets at low prices, starting with British Gas in the 1980s. Some of these schemes have worked pretty well (BT for example), while others have had dismal results (the railways and water industries in particular.)
The national power system is also rather a mess, though this is the fault of both Labour and Conservatives for failing to get to grips with problems in crucial national infrastructure.
Kilkrazy wrote: One of the ways of showing that Labour handling of the economy is worse than the Conservatives is to ignore the often terrible handling of the economy by the Conservatives.
The example was given of Brown selling off the gold at low prices. Recently the Royal Mail was sold off at low prices, and currently shares in various semi-nationalised banks are being sold off at low prices.
Historically the Conservatives have sold off an awful lot of public assets at low prices, starting with British Gas in the 1980s. Some of these schemes have worked pretty well (BT for example), while others have had dismal results (the railways and water industries in particular.)
The national power system is also rather a mess, though this is the fault of both Labour and Conservatives for failing to get to grips with problems in crucial national infrastructure.
Both Labour and Conservatives have comprehensively proven the last 30 years that neither of them should be allowed to run a bath, never mind the world's 6th richest country!
What I am saying though, point blank, is that they went far beyond that. They were spending considerably beyond the means of the tax receipts they were gathering over a protracted period when they had no cause, reason, or need to do so long before the recession hit. And that they were having to to borrow ever larger sums to sustain this unnecessary spending. The data I have provided in my last post, in reasonable depth, confirms that viewpoint. In such I way I have substantiated the viewpoint of the last Labour Government as not being very good with money. If you have data that contradicts me, please do provide it, but this isn't a case of me just casually stating an opinion here, I've actually pulled out the figures to back it up.
Spoiler:
But you only get that spike by using 01/02 or 02/03 as a starting point, and assuming spending in those years was the normal, default amount. Go back to 96/97 and then you end up with a story where spending started at 40%, dropped, and then went up to 41%.
An interesting perspective. Let's take a look at it as % of GDP over a longer period.
If you look at Government expenditure from your perspective, the graph above tells us that all was hunky dory up until 2007, at which point Labour spending due to the GFC began rising. But such a graph (unfortunately) does not tell the whole story. It does not tell us if that spending was justified, it does not tell us if the expenditure of previous institutions was necessary where another's was not, it does not tell us what their income was to their expenditure, and it does not tell us if borrowing was being incurred. It does not tell us many things which are necessary to reach a reasoned judgement and a full economic overview, but many of which are encapsulated in the previous graphs I gave, namely the ones including government expenditure in real terms, the rising of the national debt, and the amount of public sector receipts.
Spoiler:
Taken together, it tells a tale of a Government consistently spending beyond their means. Unless you're attempting to claim that spending consistently beyond your means in a time of relative economic wellbeing is a natural, efficient, and in no way problematic way of running a Government financially?
You also have done nothing to address the main thrust of my point, which is that this continually ballooning expenditure was unnecessary. To reiterate, there's nothing wrong with spending money in the piggy, but they consistently borrowed well above tax receipts post 2002 in order to pay for the expanded spending. And this spending, by 2007, had reached absurd levels (almost double what Government had been costing a decade beforehand at £308 to £550 billion). Are you claiming that this spending of an extra 200 billion pounds a year was necessary and justified? If so, why?
If you cannot answer this key point, then you must concede that the Goverment was spending far beyond its means, and incurring debt unnecessarily. Which in turn, means they were not very good with finances.
59.5% of the vote, the rest gave up before the end, no one came close in the end.
Very left though, some makes good sense but others are abit too left I think.
The remains of last nights lasagne sitting in my fridge has a greater chance of being PM that Mr Corbyn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Now to see what division it causes though, rumurs say he will lose 12 shadow cabinet members potentially.
What will the more right side do about his rise to power?
One of em's (some bloke called Jamie Reed) already quit.
I don't think the other wing of the party will do sweet FA to be honest - Labour have never had any balls for this type of thing. They didn't get rid of Brown or Milliband, long after it was clear they weren't well liked by the electorate. And they won't get rid of Corbyn either.
2 successive Tory governments (who will inevitably be increasingly wracked with infighting and scandals) and the surge of new membership in the Labour party, which quite conceivably would mean a similar swell in voters, mean that writing off Labours chances in 202 are premature to say the least. For too long UK politics have been dominated by the blue and red Tories, at least this time we may actually get something at least resembling a choice of government.
More will come out, probably announce his new cabinet by Monday?
Going to be a interesting weekend in the parliament comunity
Read somewhere that he might have trouble getting enough warm bodies to fill a shadow cabinet. Sounds a bit like hyperbole imo, I'm sure he could draft in a few careerist hacks to be Shadow Minister for Paperclips, etc. But it doesn't augur well for the future when a good portion of your MPs refuse to have anything to do with you.
When Cameron and the Tories stop rolling around the floor laughing they are going to launch an utter monstering of Corbyn - which I reckon will focus on the various nutters and cranks he's been hanging around with for the last 30 years. You'll have noticed they've been keeping very,very quiet on this (Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake, etc).
2 successive Tory governments (who will inevitably be increasingly wracked with infighting and scandals) and the surge of new membership in the Labour party, which quite conceivably would mean a similar swell in voters, mean that writing off Labours chances in 202 are premature to say the least. For too long UK politics have been dominated by the blue and red Tories, at least this time we may actually get something at least resembling a choice of government.
He's best buds with Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein (a murderer and a terrorist), best buds with Hezbollah terrorists.
Anti monarchy. I don't think he knows just how much money they bring in to the economy, as well as the political power they can use to great effect. Queen Elizabeth and the other senior members of the Royal family fought in WWII against Nazi Germany. Jeremy Corbyn is a dreamer caught up in his own little reality.
I welcome Corbyn as the new head of the Labour party. To all of those naysayers who claim Labour will never stand a chance, and their electoral campaign will fail before it's even started - so what? I'd much rather have a choice of government, between a genuinely left-wing party and a right-wing party, rather than the right-wing and the we're-totally-left-wing-wink-wink.
-Shrike- wrote: I welcome Corbyn as the new head of the Labour party. To all of those naysayers who claim Labour will never stand a chance, and their electoral campaign will fail before it's even started - so what? I'd much rather have a choice of government, between a genuinely left-wing party and a right-wing party, rather than the right-wing and the we're-totally-left-wing-wink-wink.
The Tories are the least of JC's problems - it's the Blairites he should be worrying about.
Right now, they're all smiles in public, but you can bet that they're plotting behind the scenes already.
You can expect leaks and counter-briefings to the right wing press like there is no tomorrow.
I'm no Labour fan (Scottish independence is my goal) but I wish Corbyn luck, he'd better watch out for the knives in the back from his own 'allies.'
Either explain why my post was 'nonsense' or don't post at all, all you did was spam the thread.
Really?
OK here we go.
Jeremy Corbyn is very much a representative the hard/true/real/ left of British political life. This is a small, but dedicated, portion of the voting population. Their views, by and large, are not those of the electorate - see the tiny little left wing groups who consistently lose their deposits every single time. To win an general election in the UK you need to capture the centre ground. Labour haven't won from the left since Atlee and the country is a vastly different place since 1945.
Corbyn himself has spent 30 years as a backbencher (and by all accounts he is a decent and hard working MP) espousing various 'interesting' views. Everything he said will be gone over with a fine toothed combed by the Tories and will be lobbed back at him. Of particular note, and what I suspect will be most damaging, is his association with various deeply, deeply unpleasant sectarian middle eastern groups. You cannot share a platform with the extremists of Hamas and Hezbollah and then present yourself as a national unifying figure. The overwhelming majority of Brits find these views (rightly so) repulsive and Mr Corbyn will be tainted with them. His economic views range from the cuddly (more money for nurses, etc) to the idiotic (the utterly absurd 'Peoples Quantitative Easing').
Plus, you have the awkward truth that many members of the PLP are vociferously against Corbyn. He will have real, real trouble whipping his party for votes due to his own history of rebelling against the whip. The vanishingly small chance of electoral victory in 2020 will also mean he won't be able to hand out the usual sweeties of cabinet posts, and other patronage, in order to keep the troops in line.
In short - do you really think the Tories won the last general election because Ed Miliband wasn't left wing enough?
PS: I don't want this to become a slanging match, so lets try and keep things civil eh?
Angelofvengeance: Talking to Gerry Adams is hardly being best buddies with him. The peace was won by talking, not by fighting. If Gerry Adams is a terrorist and a murderer, well, there are plenty on "the other side" who were never brought to justice and remain shielded by the British authorities to this day. There's not a politician in the UK who won't talk to Adams today, proving that Corbyn was ahead of the curve on that one. Even your beloved royals have met and talked to him. (I intensely dislike the fether too, but let's get real)
I'm happy he won. I agree with a lot of his politics and he seems like someone who sticks to his convictions.
I hope he can get somewhere. I agree that the biggest threat to him is that he's facing the right wing of his own party plus the right wing press plus the Tories. The SNP won't want him to succeed either - Sturgeon is already pressing him to commit on Trident, before he's even got his Shadow Cabinet together. She'll want to outflank him too, to keep the voters she gained from Labour.
Of course, the other issue, that England is pretty right wing these days, is going to pose him the greatest problem.
(Also, I think it is hilariously funny that people get up in arms that he has spoken to Hamas and Hezbollah when you look at how cosy the British establishment is with Saudi Arabia. )
1. Corbyn will lose the leadership challenge, and Labour will lose the next election. They will then go through this process again with another old-school Labourite.
2. Corbyn will win the leadership challenge, and Labour loses the next election. Corbyn will most likely have purged (in true old school fashion) the iron grip the New Labour faction has on the party as best he is able by then, and his successor will have an open playing field on the direction he wants to take the party.
3. Corbyn wins Leadership and general election. Interesting times ensue.
Option Number 1 has now been eliminated. That leaves two and three for the next general election.
As things stand, I do not think Corbyn will win the next election. Right now(things can change) I predict he will be far more popular than expected, as that tide of anti-establishment UKIP votes and Scottish votes floods back in his direction, but I do not see him gaining a majority, or even beating the Tories on seats. But that's almost a sideshow.
What will be important now, is what this means to the Labour party. Corbyn is in control on a shoestring right now, most of the party aren't interested in him or his policies. But now that he's won, they have two choices. They knuckle under and hope he self-destructs so they can get in on a moderation ticket next time, or they up and split. It all depends on the tack Corbyn takes. If he tailors down his policies, and offers out a conciliatory hand, they will most likely plump for the first. If, and this is the crux here, if he starts an old-school left-style purge, we may find MP's are being pressured out the door, and that they choose to split/defect rather than go quietly.
It all comes down to how much control the Unions have over Corbyn. McCluskey seems determined to outshine Bob Crow, and will be pushing Corbyn to start chucking out the careerists and the moderates, and parachuting in old-school Labourites from the word go. If Corbyn is of that frame of mind, and the two not only sideline anyone not on board with them, but actively try and remove them, we will most likely see the party split, and then the Lib Dems have a very good chance of becoming the official opposition in a few terms time.
For the Tories, meanwhile, Corbyn winning was Christmas come early. It's all but guaranteed Theresa May/George Osborne the Prime Ministership at the end of this term. My current bet is on May.
In short - do you really think the Tories won the last general election because Ed Miliband wasn't left wing enough?
In short, yes. Or at least because 'New Labour' is far to close to old Tory. He had other personal legitimacy issues as well but that's not the reason why Labour lost, IMO at the very least.
All you need to do is look what happened in Scotland, the SNP claimed the Left ground and all but annihilated Labour, that was not due to nationalism.
I think from what I've seen, Corbyn does not want a "purge" as much as some of his ardent supporters do. But he does want to change how the Labour party makes decisions and make it more democratic.
Da Boss wrote: Christ I hope not - May and Osborne are abysmal.
Thatcher reborn, eh?
I think it is embarassing however, in the event that comes to pass, that the Conservatives will have had two female Prime Ministers, while the supposedly more equal Labour/Lib Dems won't have even had a female Leader.
Corbyn meanwhile, has the problem of enforcing his decrees on a party that hates him. I'm of the opinion at this exact moment, that he'll either have to do a purge, or he'll slowly slide out because nobody pays any attention to him, or allows themselves to be whipped by him. He's caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. And given that choice with the Unions egging him on? I reckon we'll see a lot of faces disappearing from the Labour party over the next year, and either vanishing altogether or reappearing in a splinter party or the Lib Dems.
1. Corbyn will lose the leadership challenge, and Labour will lose the next election. They will then go through this process again with another old-school Labourite.
2. Corbyn will win the leadership challenge, and Labour loses the next election. Corbyn will most likely have purged (in true old school fashion) the iron grip the New Labour faction has on the party as best he is able by then, and his successor will have an open playing field on the direction he wants to take the party.
3. Corbyn wins Leadership and general election. Interesting times ensue.
Option Number 1 has now been eliminated. That leaves two and three for the next general election.
As things stand, I do not think Corbyn will win the next election. Right now(things can change) I predict he will be far more popular than expected, as that tide of anti-establishment UKIP votes and Scottish votes floods back in his direction, but I do not see him gaining a majority, or even beating the Tories on seats. But that's almost a sideshow.
What will be important now, is what this means to the Labour party. Corbyn is in control on a shoestring right now, most of the party aren't interested in him or his policies. But now that he's won, they have two choices. They knuckle under and hope he self-destructs so they can get in on a moderation ticket next time, or they up and split. It all depends on the tack Corbyn takes. If he tailors down his policies, and offers out a conciliatory hand, they will most likely plump for the first. If, and this is the crux here, if he starts an old-school left-style purge, we may find MP's are being pressured out the door, and that they choose to split/defect rather than go quietly.
It all comes down to how much control the Unions have over Corbyn. McCluskey seems determined to outshine Bob Crow, and will be pushing Corbyn to start chucking out the careerists and the moderates, and parachuting in old-school Labourites from the word go. If Corbyn is of that frame of mind, and the two not only sideline anyone not on board with them, but actively try and remove them, we will most likely see the party split, and then the Lib Dems have a very good chance of becoming the official opposition in a few terms time.
For the Tories, meanwhile, Corbyn winning was Christmas come early. It's all but guaranteed Theresa May/George Osborne the Prime Ministership at the end of this term. My current bet is on May.
I don't think a Tory victory is certain. There's still a lot of resentment that can be tapped into over how the bankers have basically got off scot free after causing the whole economic mess (contrast to Iceland where they were tried and several put in prison), not to mention Tory tampering with the NHS which can get people very riled up, the whole can the UK government kill its citizens without trial thing etc.
If he plays to issues such as these I can see him possibly mobilising enough support to win, though maybe as a coalition with the SNP.
1. Corbyn will lose the leadership challenge, and Labour will lose the next election. They will then go through this process again with another old-school Labourite.
2. Corbyn will win the leadership challenge, and Labour loses the next election. Corbyn will most likely have purged (in true old school fashion) the iron grip the New Labour faction has on the party as best he is able by then, and his successor will have an open playing field on the direction he wants to take the party.
3. Corbyn wins Leadership and general election. Interesting times ensue.
Option Number 1 has now been eliminated. That leaves two and three for the next general election.
As things stand, I do not think Corbyn will win the next election. Right now(things can change) I predict he will be far more popular than expected, as that tide of anti-establishment UKIP votes and Scottish votes floods back in his direction, but I do not see him gaining a majority, or even beating the Tories on seats. But that's almost a sideshow.
What will be important now, is what this means to the Labour party. Corbyn is in control on a shoestring right now, most of the party aren't interested in him or his policies. But now that he's won, they have two choices. They knuckle under and hope he self-destructs so they can get in on a moderation ticket next time, or they up and split. It all depends on the tack Corbyn takes. If he tailors down his policies, and offers out a conciliatory hand, they will most likely plump for the first. If, and this is the crux here, if he starts an old-school left-style purge, we may find MP's are being pressured out the door, and that they choose to split/defect rather than go quietly.
It all comes down to how much control the Unions have over Corbyn. McCluskey seems determined to outshine Bob Crow, and will be pushing Corbyn to start chucking out the careerists and the moderates, and parachuting in old-school Labourites from the word go. If Corbyn is of that frame of mind, and the two not only sideline anyone not on board with them, but actively try and remove them, we will most likely see the party split, and then the Lib Dems have a very good chance of becoming the official opposition in a few terms time.
For the Tories, meanwhile, Corbyn winning was Christmas come early. It's all but guaranteed Theresa May/George Osborne the Prime Ministership at the end of this term. My current bet is on May.
I don't think a Tory victory is certain. There's still a lot of resentment that can be tapped into over how the bankers have basically got off scot free after causing the whole economic mess (contrast to Iceland where they were tried and several put in prison), not to mention Tory tampering with the NHS which can get people very riled up, the whole can the UK government kill its citizens without trial thing etc.
If he plays to issues such as these I can see him possibly mobilising enough support to win, though maybe as a coalition with the SNP.
We can only ever go off empirical experience with things (the people we talk to, the media we digest, etc), but right here and now, there doesn't seem to be too much flak on the current Tory administration. There's been a few screwups (Atos would be a good example there), but generally speaking, the country is running reasonably well. Tomorrow is more or less the same as today for most people, which is what people like. I haven't seen that wellspring of anger against the current administration that slowly built up against Labour, and there haven't been any particularly large 'Iraq War' style blunders that the opposition can point to.
In other words, I believe you'd need a serious opposition, with political heavyweights and credibility to challenge the status quo, and Labour simply doesn't have it. Corbyn's never even been a Minister, and whoever gets parachuted in after his purge will be even less politically experienced or palatable. The English population in inherently conservative with a small C these days, and whilst some of what Corbyn says makes sense, he's too left wing for them to desert the Conservatives en masse. Without them, he can't get enough seats to win.
What's more, the headlines over the next few years will either show him being ignored/mildly backstabbed by his own party, or conducting something of a Stalinist purge inside of it. Neither one will make him look very good, and neither one will further endear him to the populace.
Ketara wrote: he's too left wing for them to desert the Conservatives en masse. Without them, he can't get enough seats to win.
A third of voters routinely don't bother to vote, 34% in this GE. How many of those lost votes are due to apathy and how many are due to a lack of representation?
Labour doesn't need to take a single vote from the Tories to win in 2020, it just needs to re-engage the electorate. The SNP managed it in Scotland so, in theory, Labour could do it across the UK.
Ketara wrote: he's too left wing for them to desert the Conservatives en masse. Without them, he can't get enough seats to win.
A third of voters routinely don't bother to vote, 34% in this GE. How many of those lost votes are due to apathy and how many are due to a lack of representation?
Labour doesn't need to take a single vote from the Tories to win in 2020, it just needs to re-engage the electorate. The SNP managed it in Scotland so, in theory, Labour could do it across the UK.
In theory, I also could win the next election by doing so. In reality, I don't believe Corbyn has a chance for the reasons I just gave. He's no Blair reborn. There's a reason the other Labour candidates are facedesking and the Conservatives whooping with glee.
None of the candidates had much of a hope in a general election either in all fairness, but Corbyn's winning potentially may well hand the Tories anything up to another decade in power if the Labour party fractures.
Yeah, I agree with others - Corbyn will be too busy pulling the knives out of his back to do anything useful, and sadly, England has shifted to the right
BUT there are a lot of people who don't vote. If Corbyn gives them something to vote for, Labour could triumph in England. I say England, because Scotland will be lost to them for years.
3 key policy issues will pop up that will test Corbyn early on:
1) EU referendum. Corbyn's no fan of it, but many in his party are...Trouble ahead how will Corbyn play the referendum?
2) Trident renewal. Will he put his money where his mouth is and join the SNP and vote against it? Again, it might cause a party split, which would be remarkable, giving Labour opposition to nuclear weapons over the years.
3) House of Lords. Corbyn could permanently damage this farce of a democracy at a stroke by ordering Labour peers not to attend. Will he do it? He's been vocal in the past with his criticism of the lords.
Ketara wrote: he's too left wing for them to desert the Conservatives en masse. Without them, he can't get enough seats to win.
A third of voters routinely don't bother to vote, 34% in this GE. How many of those lost votes are due to apathy and how many are due to a lack of representation?
Labour doesn't need to take a single vote from the Tories to win in 2020, it just needs to re-engage the electorate. The SNP managed it in Scotland so, in theory, Labour could do it across the UK.
In theory, I also could win the next election by doing so. In reality, I don't believe Corbyn has a chance for the reasons I just gave. He's no Blair reborn. There's a reason the other Labour candidates are facedesking and the Conservatives whooping with glee.
None of the candidates had much of a hope in a general election either in all fairness, but Corbyn's winning and potentially may well hand the Tories anything up to another decade in power if the Labour party fractures.
He might take a leaf out of Sturgeon's book. The right-wing press demonised her, and looked what happened in May.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: To pull up my previous quote from before....
1. Corbyn will lose the leadership challenge, and Labour will lose the next election. They will then go through this process again with another old-school Labourite.
2. Corbyn will win the leadership challenge, and Labour loses the next election. Corbyn will most likely have purged (in true old school fashion) the iron grip the New Labour faction has on the party as best he is able by then, and his successor will have an open playing field on the direction he wants to take the party.
3. Corbyn wins Leadership and general election. Interesting times ensue.
Option Number 1 has now been eliminated. That leaves two and three for the next general election.
As things stand, I do not think Corbyn will win the next election. Right now(things can change) I predict he will be far more popular than expected, as that tide of anti-establishment UKIP votes and Scottish votes floods back in his direction, but I do not see him gaining a majority, or even beating the Tories on seats. But that's almost a sideshow.
What will be important now, is what this means to the Labour party. Corbyn is in control on a shoestring right now, most of the party aren't interested in him or his policies. But now that he's won, they have two choices. They knuckle under and hope he self-destructs so they can get in on a moderation ticket next time, or they up and split. It all depends on the tack Corbyn takes. If he tailors down his policies, and offers out a conciliatory hand, they will most likely plump for the first. If, and this is the crux here, if he starts an old-school left-style purge, we may find MP's are being pressured out the door, and that they choose to split/defect rather than go quietly.
It all comes down to how much control the Unions have over Corbyn. McCluskey seems determined to outshine Bob Crow, and will be pushing Corbyn to start chucking out the careerists and the moderates, and parachuting in old-school Labourites from the word go. If Corbyn is of that frame of mind, and the two not only sideline anyone not on board with them, but actively try and remove them, we will most likely see the party split, and then the Lib Dems have a very good chance of becoming the official opposition in a few terms time.
For the Tories, meanwhile, Corbyn winning was Christmas come early. It's all but guaranteed Theresa May/George Osborne the Prime Ministership at the end of this term. My current bet is on May.
As I've said to you before on many an occasion, do not underestimate the Tory ability to self-destruct over Europe.
Ketara wrote: There's a reason the other Labour candidates are facedesking and the Conservatives whooping with glee.
Its way to early to write him off. In a year those same Tories may well be making markedly different noises and the Blairites may well be remembering exactly what the Labour party was founded upon.
Corbyn certainly has a difficult task, not least the media's apparent dislike of him, but he has some advantages as well. He is outside of the 'establishment', he is openly principled and his politics are genuinely different. If he can hold the party together and if he can produce a genuinely progressive and workable manifesto then its entirely possible that he will be the next PM. Frankly I would be happy with virtually anyone but the lizard people in the current cabinet.
Ketara wrote: There's a reason the other Labour candidates are facedesking and the Conservatives whooping with glee.
Its way to early to write him off. In a year those same Tories may well be making markedly different noises and the Blairites may well be remembering exactly what the Labour party was founded upon.
This is true. But by the same measure, we could be in another giant war and have democracy suspended.
We can only ever predict from the current status quo (since the future is unknowable), but barring some major upset, the most likely results as things stand are not very rosy for Corbyn. IMO.
-Shrike- wrote: I welcome Corbyn as the new head of the Labour party. To all of those naysayers who claim Labour will never stand a chance, and their electoral campaign will fail before it's even started - so what? I'd much rather have a choice of government, between a genuinely left-wing party and a right-wing party, rather than the right-wing and the we're-totally-left-wing-wink-wink.
It strikes me as a "kill or cure" move for Labour. He's risky, but he's something new and different--and a spectacular failure would be better than a slow slide into irrelevance, with nobody even able to tell how they're different from the Tories.
He appeals to the Greens, he appeals to the very disenfranchised liberal democrats who watched their own party sell it's soul and repaid it by destroying it. Labour voters will vote for him and while the Tories continue to chase and attempt to appease the UKIP voters, middle right wing may also end up drifting his way, I've spoken with several traditionally conservative voters who've been looking at him just by dint of what they perceive to be his honesty compared with the majority in Westminster.
People are, both sides of the pond, really tired of politicians, of the breed it's self. That's why we're seeing these wildcards actually gaining momentum. I would rather vote for someone who I believed was honest and had the best interests of the people at heart, even if they came from the other side of the floor, than the pocket-lining, back-scratching PR slick types we've been drowning in lately.
One of the most ferociously right wing guys I know in the US and I were talking the other night, he actually likes Bernie Sanders because 'I think he has an honest way about him and while I don't much care for his crowd, I think he'd be a down the line sort of guy', he's actually standing for things he believes in and I can respect that'.
I think some Tories are rubbing their hands with glee assuming labour will be unelectable. While others are probably worried because it makes things more unpredictable . Who knows how things will develop in a couple of years and the direction the wind will blow with the electorate. I think many on both sides were happier with Labour being closer to the Conservatives as it doesn't create potential for a massive swing in favour of one or the other, they fear real choice and unpredictability.
As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.
Sturmtruppen wrote: As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.
I for one, would be happy with the Lib Dems supplanting Labour as the Opposition. I think that regardless of Clegg's getting played like an accordion, the Lib Dems are generally the nicest of the parties. I disagree with many of their policies, but I like their politicians the best.
The rebellion started seconds after he was unveiled as new Labour leader at 11.42am. Labour Health spokesman Jamie Reed resigned via Twitter at 11.43am.
Another tweet posted by Andy Burnham’s shocked team at the same time said ‘f***’ – but it was quickly deleted.
The rebellion started seconds after he was unveiled as new Labour leader at 11.42am. Labour Health spokesman Jamie Reed resigned via Twitter at 11.43am.
Another tweet posted by Andy Burnham’s shocked team at the same time said ‘f***’ – but it was quickly deleted.
Sturmtruppen wrote: As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.
I for one, would be happy with the Lib Dems supplanting Labour as the Opposition. I think that regardless of Clegg's getting played like an accordion, the Lib Dems are generally the nicest of the parties. I disagree with many of their policies, but I like their politicians the best.
Me too. PLus, for most of the past 15 years the Liberals have been more left wing than the Labour Party.
The rebellion started seconds after he was unveiled as new Labour leader at 11.42am. Labour Health spokesman Jamie Reed resigned via Twitter at 11.43am.
Another tweet posted by Andy Burnham’s shocked team at the same time said ‘f***’ – but it was quickly deleted.
As factual and unbiased an article as ever can be expected from the Daily Mail
And a poll of 100 people! And 100 people who read the Mail on Sunday! That is sure to be representative of the public as a whole!
Hey, it's a tabloid, little better than the Sun or Daily Star. I'm under no delusions and make no claims as to its objectivity and how factual it is. I just read it because I'm lazy.
Sturmtruppen wrote: As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.
I for one, would be happy with the Lib Dems supplanting Labour as the Opposition. I think that regardless of Clegg's getting played like an accordion, the Lib Dems are generally the nicest of the parties. I disagree with many of their policies, but I like their politicians the best.
Me too. PLus, for most of the past 15 years the Liberals have been more left wing than the Labour Party.
Say that again with a straight face
During their coalition days, the Libs Dems were enthusiastic cheerleaders for some of the worst excesses of Tory policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sturmtruppen wrote: As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.
2-3 years down the line, the lib dems will still be holding their meetings in a phone box. Nah, It'll take years for them to recover.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think some Tories are rubbing their hands with glee assuming labour will be unelectable. While others are probably worried because it makes things more unpredictable . Who knows how things will develop in a couple of years and the direction the wind will blow with the electorate. I think many on both sides were happier with Labour being closer to the Conservatives as it doesn't create potential for a massive swing in favour of one or the other, they fear real choice and unpredictability.
Before the Tories start rubbing their hands with glee over Labour, they would do well to remember this important equation of British politics:
Tories + Slim Majority + Europe = Cluster feth of epic proportions
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The only people who think the Liberals will recover anytime soon are Nick Clegg and Nick Clegg's goldfish
To suggest any kind of support on the back of Corbyn's victory is pie in the sky politics.
Nobody said the word 'soon'. It's not going to happen next week, or next month, or even next year. What we're anticipating is the potential consequences for Labour as a result of Corbyn taking over combined with the current doctrinal void at the heart of the Labour party.
As things stand, the Lib Dems were 3 1/2 million votes down in 2015 compared to 2010. But that still left them with 2 1/2 million votes (as compared to the SNP's current 1 1/2 million). Those votes are their core voter base, the ones who aren't disaffected students or Labourites. They won't be going anywhere, and they can rebuild on those.
Now that may seem dreadful, but remember, memory in politics is short, and the Lib Dems still retain a highly organised UK wide party organisation, and have a fairly serious chunk of funding. They got blitzed in terms of seats this Parliament as a backlash for going into coalition, but that will be a temporary effect. I would be surprised if they didn't pick up another million extra votes and a handful more seats at the end of this Parliament regardless.
The Liberal Democrats are actually the natural voter base for the majority of today's younger voters. They're not Labourites, they remember Blair's smoke and mirrors, and Brown's feth ups too much. With the doctrinal void in Labour, there's nothing to keep them there. At the same time however, the Conservatives have always been the party of those that already have money/property, which the young don't tend to possess. In terms of principles, today's youth also tends to be liberal in matters of gay rights and suchlike. To repeat, the younger population are the natural Lib Dem voters.
Now all this is somewhat irrelevant though if Labour stays together as a cohesive force. Labour still soaks up too many votes for the Lib Dems to have any chance in the next decade or two. If Labour splits as a result of Corbyn though, a scenario I'd give 50/50 odds on right now, Labour will disintegrate into the real left wingers, who will pull actual socialist policies out of the hat, and a new party filled with the Blairites. I'd estimate that in such a scenario, Labour's voterbase in the general election will probably be split about 35/30(with the rest defecting). Old school Labour has taken the Labour Party by storm (which I expected), I don't see it taking the country. Too many remember when the dead weren't being buried and the bins backing up for real old school Socialism to do very well. But the Blairites aren't exactly an attractive lot either.
In such a scenario, the Liberal Democrats will probably be on an even footing with the two Labour descendants in terms of money and core voter base. What's more, they'll also still be a unified, organised force, whereas the two Labour descendants will be squabbling over who campaigns where, and who gets which party HQ. In such a scenario, a canny Liberal Democrat leader would be well-placed to shove the other two out of the door, and assume the role of the Opposition over a ten year period or so.
I'd place the odds on that occurring at about 20% right now. Not staggeringly high, but Corbyn's substantial victory (and bringing in of Tom Watson) has raised it from the somewhat iffy 8% I would have given it five days ago.
But now they're having to pay £9k a year for tuition and are also on the road to losing maintenance grants. All of which won't improve the countries economy one bit but will instead lead to a massive black hole in government money 30 years from now. And this was pushed through by people who didn't pay a penny for their own university education, except for possibly what their parents "donated" in order for them to get into Oxford or Cambridge.
To say nothing of the Tories messing about with the NHS or Welfare.
Young people don't like being lied to. I didn't and I won't consider voting for them again until every last one of the MPs who voted for Tory policies which were completely against the Lib Dem manifesto are no longer in the party.
But now they're having to pay £9k a year for tuition and are also on the road to losing maintenance grants. All of which won't improve the countries economy one bit but will instead lead to a massive black hole in government money 30 years from now. And this was pushed through by people who didn't pay a penny for their own university education, except for possibly what their parents "donated" in order for them to get into Oxford or Cambridge.
Quite frankly, the only young people who were burned by the tuition fees increase were the ones too stupid to read the actual T &C on student loans, and vastly overinflated the issue (I was an undergrad at the time). I still remember watching them on telly camped out around Parliament, tearfully sobbing that they could 'never raise that kind of money to go to University'. They were also too thick to grasp the financial ramifications of 50% of people going to University.
Five years on, more people than ever are going to uni, and that batch of young people are now 'not so young' people. In another five years, they'll just be 'people', and a new batch of 'young people' will have replaced them who don't know or care about what the Lib Dems did in coalition a decade beforehand.
Isn't it the case that most people are entitled to at least a loan at bare minimum? I didn't get any grants as my parents are reasonably well off, but nor did I have to pay a penny up front, my entire costs were funded through loans.
The only contributions my parents needed to make was with travel expenses (minimal, as I lived on campus for 3 years) and food (£25 a week in my 2nd year when my rent was particularly high). I lived reasonably comfortably without needing a job (no social life and being only an occasional light drinker gives you a lot of spare cash. I probably spent more at GW in 3 years than I did on alcohol . )
University education is ridiculously bloated now anyway. I'm starting to wish I hadn't gone myself and had done something vocational or joined the RAF (which I briefly considered). Now I'm 24, and reconsidering the RAF, but I've just found out that having Aspergers is a total bar on joining (which I probably have).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Isn't it the case that most people are entitled to at least a loan at bare minimum? I didn't get any grants as my parents are reasonably well off, but nor did I have to pay a penny up front, my entire costs were funded through loans.
The only contributions my parents needed to make was with travel expenses (minimal, as I lived on campus for 3 years) and food (£25 a week in my 2nd year when my rent was particularly high). I lived reasonably comfortably without needing a job (no social life and being only an occasional light drinker gives you a lot of spare cash. I probably spent more at GW in 3 years than I did on alcohol . )
University education is ridiculously bloated now anyway. I'm starting to wish I hadn't gone myself and had done something vocational or joined the RAF (which I briefly considered). Now I'm 24, and reconsidering the RAF, but I've just found out that having Aspergers is a total bar on joining (which I probably have).
As an ex student of this past year, I agree that there are too many people in university. I was one of them, I didn't want to go to university but because I want to be a teacher, I needed too.
Same for my loans, I haven't paid a penny towards my university degree. The government paid it, if I earn enough, I'll eventually pay it back. But I doubt I'll pay all of it off.
Which makes me think, seeing as most people won't get around to paying off their loans, why isn't the whole system free anyway? One way or another the government funds it.
As for labour, I'm old enough to remember brown and Blair, and I'm still not convinced by corbyn. Luckily I voted Tory, and I event predicted they would win months before the election.
But now they're having to pay £9k a year for tuition and are also on the road to losing maintenance grants. All of which won't improve the countries economy one bit but will instead lead to a massive black hole in government money 30 years from now. And this was pushed through by people who didn't pay a penny for their own university education, except for possibly what their parents "donated" in order for them to get into Oxford or Cambridge.
Quite frankly, the only young people who were burned by the tuition fees increase were the ones too stupid to read the actual T &C on student loans, and vastly overinflated the issue (I was an undergrad at the time). I still remember watching them on telly camped out around Parliament, tearfully sobbing that they could 'never raise that kind of money to go to University'. They were also too thick to grasp the financial ramifications of 50% of people going to University.
Five years on, more people than ever are going to uni, and that batch of young people are now 'not so young' people. In another five years, they'll just be 'people', and a new batch of 'young people' will have replaced them who don't know or care about what the Lib Dems did in coalition a decade beforehand.
They also won't care about a party which only has 8 MPs (and I don't see that increasing much in the next election). If they want to vote for an underdog I think they'll be more likely to vote for the Greens. The Liberal Democrats are over.
Student loans that you'll 'never' have to pay off because of your income level still have disadvantages,
they are debt, and thus have a bearing on getting other sorts of loans like credit cards, mortgages etc, and because you'll 'never' pay them off this might not cause you grief now, but could come back to bite you at any time
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Isn't it the case that most people are entitled to at least a loan at bare minimum? I didn't get any grants as my parents are reasonably well off, but nor did I have to pay a penny up front, my entire costs were funded through loans.
Everyone gets the loan if they want it, the thing your parent's income level decides is how much of your maintenance cash is grant, and how much is tacked onto the loan. Altogether, they usually give you just about enough to pay your rent and food bills (although you'll have to be frugal if your parents are seriously high earners). If you're a heavy drinker/socialite, it won't be nearly enough, but the way I see it, if you want to urinate money away on booze, you should be getting a part-time job to pay for it.
welshhoppo wrote:
As an ex student of this past year, I agree that there are too many people in university. I was one of them, I didn't want to go to university but because I want to be a teacher, I needed too.
You used to be able to do teacher training at a Polytechnic, Canterbury Christchurch is an excellent example of an ex-poly which specialised in teacher training, and continues to do so. The only difference, is that now your qualification has 'degree' stamped on it, and costs an arm and a leg more to help fund their shiny new science department.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
They also won't care about a party which only has 8 MPs (and I don't see that increasing much in the next election). If they want to vote for an underdog I think they'll be more likely to vote for the Greens. The Liberal Democrats are over.
If a party can go from over 50 MP's to under ten in a single election, it can easily claw them back again. Your dislike of the current Lib Dems is blinding you to the fact that the FPTP system works in a very strange way. The SNP got a million less votes, and about fifty more seats this time around. Next time around (because political memory is short), they'll probably claw back another ten or so at least. Or perhaps more. Or perhaps not. The point being made here is that the number of seats actually has very little to do with votes gained and structural influence in this country.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:Student loans that you'll 'never' have to pay off because of your income level still have disadvantages,
they are debt, and thus have a bearing on getting other sorts of loans like credit cards, mortgages etc, and because you'll 'never' pay them off this might not cause you grief now, but could come back to bite you at any time
Most banks usually discount student loans when making decisions for things like credit cards (or I wouldn't have one! ). I have a friend who works at Halifax and deals with these things, and she said that they rarely take a student loan into a decision on a mortgage beyond the standard 'How much do the repayments deduct from your income' perspective. Being a few thousand in overdraft is far more damaging.
I know that now, but I didn't know about it four years ago.
I was quite a bright student, cruised through my a levels with the greatest of ease.......
But I found that my school, and the schools of many other people that I've talked to, have this attitude of "your a good student, therefore the only option is university and we will make it very hard for you to try and apply for anything else." They make it into a case of university or death!
My only thought on Corbyn is that you don't always have to lead the party to a national win to have an effect on politics. If nothing else, it's likely that future Labour politicians will have to be a lot more respectful of the left of their own party in order to be confident of winning and holding leadership of their party. The effect of that, possibly, is to drag UK politics a little to the left from where it is now.
Actually, my other thought is that he shares his initials with me and Jesus, so I find myself vaguely sort of barracking for him because of that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Historically the Conservatives have sold off an awful lot of public assets at low prices, starting with British Gas in the 1980s. Some of these schemes have worked pretty well (BT for example), while others have had dismal results (the railways and water industries in particular.)
Yeah, privatisation is pretty hit and miss. And while it's often obvious in hindsight which ones work or don't, I'm not sure anyone has ever set up a really clear set of descriptors for figuring it out beforehand. It's obvious now why telecommunications privatisation worked while water failed, but I'm not sure it should have been obvious beforehand.
I guess railway privatisation was always destined to fail, though. That one seemed obvious at the time.
Both Labour and Conservatives have comprehensively proven the last 30 years that neither of them should be allowed to run a bath, never mind the world's 6th richest country!
It's funny though, because you're not the 6th richest country in the world by accident. Your governments, both Conservative and Labour aren't the only reason why, but they also perhaps aren't purely the drag they're often seemed to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: If you look at Government expenditure from your perspective, the graph above tells us that all was hunky dory up until 2007, at which point Labour spending due to the GFC began rising. But such a graph (unfortunately) does not tell the whole story. It does not tell us if that spending was justified, it does not tell us if the expenditure of previous institutions was necessary where another's was not, it does not tell us what their income was to their expenditure, and it does not tell us if borrowing was being incurred. It does not tell us many things which are necessary to reach a reasoned judgement and a full economic overview, but many of which are encapsulated in the previous graphs I gave, namely the ones including government expenditure in real terms, the rising of the national debt, and the amount of public sector receipts.
Your graphs make no comment at all on whether spending was justified, or whether previous spending was necessary. Graphs can't do that. You need to actually review spending area by area, measure waste, set up best practice standards etc. Forget that for a forum debate
And yeah, if you want to make the claim that New Labour had spending consistent with previous Conservative governments but taxed much less you can make the claim and I think it's quite reasonable, but it's also miles away from the common narrative of the New Labour's financial performance. And of course, that opens up the question of whether the correct response was reduced spending or increased revenue...
If you cannot answer this key point, then you must concede that the Goverment was spending far beyond its means, and incurring debt unnecessarily. Which in turn, means they were not very good with finances.
No, the point I'm making is that New Labour brought spending down from the level it was under the previous Conservative government, and then saw it increase back up to the same level. They started with spending around 40% of GDP, they finished with spending around 40% of GDP.
There's a lot of commentary and much criticism that can be made, but 'ballooning spending' isn't really part of it once you see the real numbers.
Your graphs make no comment at all on whether spending was justified, or whether previous spending was necessary. Graphs can't do that.
That's why I said that 'many' of the wider economic issues it is necessary to examine to reach a judgement are in the graphs I posted and not 'all' of them. The point here being that you've posted a single graph to support your assertion that New Labour actually wasn't really bad with money, and that that one graph is so specific as to tell us very little.
And yeah, if you want to make the claim that New Labour had spending consistent with previous Conservative governments but taxed much less you can make the claim
I've asserted nothing of the sort? I'm not arguing for Conservative competence here, but Labour incompetence.
and I think it's quite reasonable, but it's also miles away from the common narrative of the New Labour's financial performance. And of course, that opens up the question of whether the correct response was reduced spending or increased revenue...
Errr......New Labour raised taxes when they came into power. They raised taxes and raised spending. It's one of the reasons the tax receipts went up along with their expenditure.
No, the point I'm making is that New Labour brought spending down from the level it was under the previous Conservative government, and then saw it increase back up to the same level.
New Labour inherited balanced books and a budget surplus from John Major's government. They didn't 'bring spending down'. You're still fixating on that one chart of 'spending as a percentage of GDP' to the exclusion of all else. As a percentage of GDP, spending dropped in the 1998-2000 period yes, but in real terms, aka, the actual figure spent, government expenditure went from 308.4 billion to 340.8 billion.
Which, as I keep stating, is fine. The money was in the kitty. It's 2002-2007 figures that to me, prove New Labour's economic incompetence.
They started with spending around 40% of GDP, they finished with spending around 40% of GDP.
Is this genuinely the only measure by which you personally gauge a Government's economic competence? Because it seems to be the one figure you keep falling back on, whilst doing absolutely nothing to address the figures/reasoning I keep repeating. And whilst it's a useful enough tool to begin with, it really doesn't tell you very much at the end of the day.
There's a lot of commentary and much criticism that can be made, but 'ballooning spending' isn't really part of it once you see the real numbers.
Okay. ;'Real numbers' (as opposed to percentages of GDP). Government expenditure in 1997:- 308.4 billion. In 2002:- 389.1 billion. In 2006:- 523.5 billion. In 2009:- 633.8 billion.
Please tell me how this increase of expenditure does not qualify as 'ballooning spending'. Because even if the money had all been there (which it very clearly was not), a more than doubling of expenditure would still qualify as 'ballooning' in my book. The only way it would not be, would be if there had been substantial-hyper inflation, meaning the money was worth considerably less in real terms, or if the larger part of the increase was in the post 2007 period (to represent Keynesian economic stimulation, which would still be ballooning, but would be justified). But that's really not the case here in either example, so I'm genuinely curious as to how you can contradict me on this one.
Ketara wrote: That's why I said that 'many' of the wider economic issues it is necessary to examine to reach a judgement are in the graphs I posted and not 'all' of them. The point here being that you've posted a single graph to support your assertion that New Labour actually wasn't really bad with money, and that that one graph is so specific as to tell us very little.
No, my assertion is that the accepted narrative of runaway spending is not supported by the facts. A simple narrative that actually fit the facts would be 'New Labour started with spending at about 40%, brought that down considerably, then let it drift back up to 40%'.
I've got personal opinions on whether spending should ever be as high as 40% under any government in any developed country, but those opinions are likely formed by my experience as an Australian, and don't really matter to what level you guys should decide upon for your own country.
Errr......New Labour raised taxes when they came into power. They raised taxes and raised spending. It's one of the reasons the tax receipts went up along with their expenditure.
They bumped up taxes in the old strategy of letting the pain happen early on, then easing up. Much the same as the current Conservative strategy of slashing spending when they first came to term, then steadily going back to business as it always was. Look, graphs! See the spike when they first came to office, followed by a plateau on what was about the average historic rate of revenue.
New Labour inherited balanced books and a budget surplus from John Major's government. They didn't 'bring spending down'. You're still fixating on that one chart of 'spending as a percentage of GDP' to the exclusion of all else.
That is the only measure that has any value.
Is this genuinely the only measure by which you personally gauge a Government's economic competence?
It's not the only measure to gauge economic competence, but it is the only measure on which to gauge fiscal budgeting.
Okay. ;'Real numbers' (as opposed to percentages of GDP). Government expenditure in 1997:- 308.4 billion. In 2002:- 389.1 billion. In 2006:- 523.5 billion. In 2009:- 633.8 billion.
Real numbers ignore population growth, inflation and productivity increases. Which makes them useless. The way to factor in those is to measure as a % of GDP.
Because even if the money had all been there (which it very clearly was not), a more than doubling of expenditure would still qualify as 'ballooning' in my book.
It's pretty simple really. Let's say I'm treasurer for the local wargaming club. With 100 members in the club I spend $1,000 a year on all the necessary expenses - rent, maintenance, prizes and advertising. You are put in control, and over your first couple of years you reduce spending down to $800 a year. Then in the next 8 years is grows out to $1,200.
I want my old job back, so I complain that you increased spending by 50%, from $800 to $1,200. You point out that it isn't very sensible to pick a point part way through your tenure as the low point from which spending increased, and actually if you consider there's now 120 members, and so per member you're actually spending the same as it was before you took the job.
Ketara wrote: the Lib Dems still retain a highly organised UK wide party organisation, and have a fairly serious chunk of funding.
They can't compete with Labour on these areas (I know as someone who's done door-to-door campaigning for them at a General Election and is friends with one of the guys who works in that department for them).
It makes allegations of drug taking and debauchery by David Cameron
Suggests he knew in 2009 Lord Ashcroft was controversial 'non dom'
PM once 'put a private part of his anatomy' into dead pig, source claims
... ... he...what sorry ..???!!!??
.. wow.
Seems Black Mirror by Charlie Brooker was sharper than we thought perhaps.
Attacking one of the Tories. Is this a leadership bid in disguise? If so by who?
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories but this comes so soon after the Corbyn win (which has terrified the Tories) that it makes me think they want a change of leader.
George Spiggott wrote: Attacking one of the Tories. Is this a leadership bid in disguise? If so by who?
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories but this comes so soon after the Corbyn win (which has terrified the Tories) that it makes me think they want a change of leader.
Good point. Ashcroft has been sitting on this for years. Why are these allegations being released now?
I really hope that this will be Camerons lasting legacy, that he was accused of getting head from a dead pig
I wouldnt be too distressed by that. The serious press has already moved on, only the satirists and those who insist it must be true because it suits their agendas.
The source is highly discredited, has a lot of spite; and left wingers who went to the same college society are saying they have never heard of the ritual.
Better than a reputation of being the man who took the UK into an illegal war for personal gain, or his successor who was so economically inept he placed the nation under a burden of debt it will take two generations under austerity to pay off.
And It's surprisingly tiny.
