Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:
but it looked like Corbyn was actively taking sides rather than truely looking for peace.

This has been true for virtually everyone involved to the slightest degree with the 'peace process'.

It can look that way with what little progress there's been.

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!

 sebster wrote:


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.

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.


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.

Jeremy Corbyn has won with just under 60% of the vote.

This is exactly what the Labour party, and UK politics as a whole needed.

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.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Jeremy Corbyn has won with just under 60% of the vote.

This is exactly what the Labour party, and UK politics as a whole needed.

Debatable, but no denying he smashed it and has a definite mandate.

Be interesting to come back to this thread in 6 months and see how things are then (after the honeymoons wore off).

Yeah... Corbyn isn't going to be in No.10

Union puppet.

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?

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.

One guy has already resigned. Shadow health secretary I think?

Yeah, think your right.

More will come out, probably announce his new cabinet by Monday?

Going to be a interesting weekend in the parliament comunity

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Yeah... Corbyn isn't going to be in No.10

Union puppet.

Cameron=Bankers puppet.

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.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
One guy has already resigned. Shadow health secretary I think?

A near complete replacement of the Shadow Cabinet is inevitable, not least to get rid of as many Blarites as possible.

 jhe90 wrote:
Yeah, think your right.

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).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Yeah... Corbyn isn't going to be in No.10

Union puppet.

Cameron=Bankers puppet.

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.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
One guy has already resigned. Shadow health secretary I think?

A near complete replacement of the Shadow Cabinet is inevitable, not least to get rid of as many Blarites as possible.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense.

I for one, will never vote for this man.

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.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense.

Either explain why my post was 'nonsense' or don't post at all, all you did was spam the thread.

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.'

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense.

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. )

To pull up my previous quote from before....

 Ketara wrote:

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.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

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.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

PS: I don't want this to become a slanging match, so lets try and keep things civil eh?

Well perhaps if you start out in that vein in future?

 Ketara wrote:
It's all but guaranteed Theresa May/George Osborne the Prime Ministership at the end of this term.

That would be an extremely dark day for the UK, on the plus side it would all but guarantee Scottish independence.

Christ I hope not - May and Osborne are abysmal.

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.

So that will be a challenge, I think.

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

Spoiler:

To pull up my previous quote from before....

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Spoiler:

To pull up my previous quote from before....

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 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....

 Ketara wrote:

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.