BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 03:34 PM

Good point, Dave, but even more difficult I think. Someone could, for instance, be very asset rich and cash short. How would they be able to pay apart from by selling the asset? What type of assets do you mean anyway? Houses? Factories? Rare record collections? Surely it can only be the type of asset that generates income and then we are taxing the income rather than the asset are we not?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:14 PM

Assets are currently taxed on acquisition. Are you suggesting they should be taxed subsequently and repeatedly?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:11 PM

Property is not taxed on acquisition, apart from stamp duty which is a trivial amount.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:26 PM

VAT is regressive because the rich do not need to spend all of their income. It is not (repeat not) even-handed in effect.

Terrorism worked for Ireland not before partition, but after. The UK bottled.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:42 PM

OK, try this, assets are purchased with money that has already been taxed.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:28 PM

I'm not so sure that terrorism worked. Didn't it initially more than likely delay power sharing etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:33 PM

Nope, Allan. Without it there would have been no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 01:49 AM

Well it is a "what if" that can't be proved one way or the other and I suppose you are right in that power sharing as such probably wouldn't have come about but peace and normal democracy may have come much sooner. The Civil Rights movement brought the issue of discrimination to the wider UK public as a whole - just as it had in the US with their black Civil Rights movement. There is at least an argument to say that the descent into violence hampered things rather than help things.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket shaking head
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 02:45 AM

So terrorism pays eh?

Coming from a solicitor, a mercenary paid to scare people, I see some weird logic.

The people of Northern Ireland, sick to the back teeth of gangster mentality, protection rackets, lack of inward investment and opportunity. That's what brought the agreements forward. Criminals never advance a cause, merely entrench positions.

Full fucking stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 02:49 AM

Face facts. The UK bottled it. The bombers won.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:24 AM

Rubbish, the objective of the Provos was a United Irish republic.

Did the bombing campaign achieve that objective, or even make it look more possible?
Power Sharing(in name only)was a device to allow the combatants to take a step back without losing face.

In Cuba The people who supported Castro were subjected to years of sanctions and repeated invasion and assassination attempts...did it work? Only to the extent that it kept the population poor, it never broke their will......If Fidel died today he would still be a hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:04 AM

Mr McGrath says......"
True. We have to pay the same rate of VAT whether we are rich or poor. I can't see any justification for it, except as a way of making poor people pay a fat chunk of tax. It ought to be abolished, and the income tax rate raised to make up the difference.

The clever trick is that when the tax-free level is raised, or the standard tax rate is lowered, that is presented as all about helping the poor - but in fact everyone, including the richest tax payers, benefit from that just as much, and that's where most of the loss to the public purse goes. And the very poorest, who don't earn enough to pay income tax, don,t get a penny. But of course when VAT goes up to make up for that, they have to pay that.

That is very true, and is a perfect example of how the Capitalist system works to encourage financial aspiration.
If investors were taxed heavily or the profits from their investments capped. they would simply move on to countries with a more sympathetic economic regime.

There is no escaping the fact that under a socialist govt we shall all have to work harder and all be contributors in whatever way we can to the economy. We must stop whining about individual and minority rights and concentrate on constructing a better infrastructure in health, housing, education and culture.

We must stop working the system to our advantage as happens at present. The conservatives are correct in saying that no one should be better off on state benefits than they are when in work.
We unashamedly rip off the NHS and the service itself makes little attempt at educating people on dealing with the causes of ill health, and tackling the problems before they arise.

Why is this? because too many in the health service have their dirty snouts in the money trough......the amount of money wasted on advocacy services, "patients rights" tribunals etc is disgraceful.
Your local doctor has simply become a dispensing chemist.

We are being conned in every facet of life, but that will never change till we realise that we ourselves have to change first.
We have been led blindfolded down the "liberalist" path for too long, looks like the splitting of the Labour party into "liberals" and socialist could be the start of something important.
Maybe at last we are on the right road.. Is it to be universal personal rights, or a better healthier society?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:35 AM

We must stop whining about individual and minority rights and concentrate on constructing a better infrastructure in health, housing, education and culture.

So, to have better health, housing, education and culture we must scrap individual and minority right? Would you care to explain that, ake? How does stopping gay people marrying improve the education of my grandson? How does paying a woman less than a man make more hospital beds? How does denying entry to a builder from the EU create more housing?

You don't half come up with some tripe and this is a prime example. Ever noticed that even those who agree with you on some points astutely avoid discussing this stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:11 AM

The NHS is the health service not the illness service. Millions are spent on public health and health promotion work, trying to encourage healthier lifestyles and putting people into situations where they can take more responsibility for their lives.

I don't know which is worst Akenaton, when you spout bigotry or just ill informed bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 12:47 PM

Reading Tony Blair's letter in the Guardian today reminded of this paragraph from C.S.Lewies' "The Silver Chair", which I quote below without further comment:

One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 06:17 PM

"Millions are spent on public health and health promotion work, trying to encourage healthier lifestyles and putting people into situations where they can take more responsibility for their lives"

Spoken like a true NHS pen pusher......you certainly should recognise "bollox", you people are experts.

I have just attended two separate tribunals each costing almost ten thousand pounds, to determine the rights and treatment of a patient who is unable and unwilling to address his/her medical problem.
Patients in this situation require guidance and confidence from their doctors, not to be presented with a questionnaire on which form of treatment they wish to have. I suppose that's what you mean about "taking responsibility for their lives"....you pompous balloon.
Two months have been wasted on this charade conducted by hugely overpaid "professionals" and a coterie of rights lawyers and advocacy advisors....."bollox"....indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:16 PM

Meanwhile Corbyn's home and dry. No need to lay off any of the £15 at 22/1 I put on him a few weeks ago. He'll easily clear 60 per cent on first preference. And yep, like someone speculated above, Caroline Lucas will make a great shadow environment secretary.

We can also be sure that Labour's party conference will be a lot of fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:07 AM

No idea what he is on about but having him sat at a tribunal can't be much of a comfort.

I must go and catch up with one of these "pen pushers" and see how many patient's lives we can bugger about with. 😂

Corbyn will give you a job as a pen pusher regardless of the industry if he gets any power. Nationalisation indeed....,,

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:05 AM

so, all the time that the right wing has been in charge of the Labour party, the left wing has stayed loyal, vocal but they stayed in the party.

Now that the right wing look as though they might lose control they are saying that if Mr Corbyn wins, there will be a split.

Hmmm, who are the true labour party supporters?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:18 AM

A split ? You mean could get another party like... what was it called ?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:56 AM

"As Kevin says, scrap VAT. Tax income more."

VAT is what pays for the EU.

Good heavens who is the troll taking Mr Shaw's name in vain posting as a GUEST?

Did the loyalists collide with the RUC? much damage done in that collision was there? What were they both driving?

Bridge - in what way did the British Government bottle it?

IIRC it was the present mob in Stormont that signed the Police Bill in Northern Ireland wasn't it? And Akenaton is perfectly correct in stating that the aim was for a United Ireland which they have failed to deliver. What has been achieved is that the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness have gained a sort of respectability and nice pensions. But after their 30 years blowing people up, running extortion rackets and drugs empires the PIRA now know how there will be a united Ireland:

1: The majority of those living in Northern Ireland have got to vote for it.

2: The people of the Republic of Ireland have then got to vote in a referendum to allow the union to take place.

The one thing that was stated loud and clear for the whole world to see in the all Ireland referendum held after the GFA became fact was that something like 92% of those who voted in that referendum agreed that guns and bombs have place in the politics of Ireland - that puts paid to anybody claiming that their brand of terrorism is being backed by a "mandate from the Irish people".

"Official" IRA ceasefire 30th May 1972 - Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 10:34 AM

The post of 06.10am was not made by me and does not represent my views. Moderators, mischief is afoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 10:53 AM

For anyone who's not been drifted off-topic by the obsesssive Teribus, further evidence that the Labour leadership spat is over.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 11:14 AM

"further evidence that the Labour leadership spat is over."
It would be comforting to think that Britain was finally getting an opportunity to vote for a change rather than more of the same old, same old.
Fingers crossed.
Two stong reason#s in favour of Cobyn - undoubtedly Blair's and Torytoon's recommendations
G'luck
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 09:05 PM

One interesting aspect of this election is the way that both Cooper and Kendall, and supporters like the Guardian, have tried to argue that electing a woman as Labour leader is important in principle - and yet the evidence is that while a pretty small percentage of their support comes from women, a majority of Corbyn's support does.

See this breakdown of Yougov's polling

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 09:48 PM

I see no mention of Corbyn's ties to holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright antisemites by those extolling his virtues here, not that it surprises me.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 01:56 AM

I wouldn't spend your winnings quite yet, Peter. I won't be at all surprised if Andy Burnham won, and the bookies odds seem about right to me (not that I have placed a bet)

What JC has certainly shown is a pent-up demand for traditional values, and one undoubted impact of that, in line with my opening post, is that Andy Burnham is now making much stronger left-of-centre statements than he did initially. Corbyn always said he wanted to open the debate up, and no-one can deny that he has done that. By my reckoning something like 2% of all eligible voters in the whole UK have paid money to have a say and it would take quite an ego to say, ok, you've spoken. Now I'll completely ignore you. (Most politicians, are, of course, not lacking in egotistical qualities)

But the media and everyone else is going on about economic competence. That's code, of course, for following the current fashion in economics rather that actual competence, but I could imagine a lot of people with pen in hand saying maybe not Corbyn after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 02:22 AM

Just checked my figures: 30,607, 835 voted last election, and figures of 610,000 eligible to vote in the leadership are being bandied about, so that is 1.99% of people who voted, not those entitled to vote. And I realise while it is likely that those who were prepared to pay also actually voted, there will still be a good number who didn't.

But my point stands!

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 02:35 AM

Corbyn and his version of economics might work, but only if you persuade the rest of the G20 countries to adopt a similar strategy.

Which you can't.

So it doesn't work.

This parochial attitude to how the world works and the interdependency needed in order to even begin to fund your social programme is something Tories and UKIP don't grasp. To hear Corbyn have a similar naive outlook is both unsettling and worrying.

Yes, his priority list with what we have to play with is laudable but you have to generate it first. Go for the bankers' bonuses? That'll fund Birmingham social services for 48 hours.

After that?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 03:05 AM

Since neither you nor I are economists, Musket, I'm not sure it is valuable to debate it much further! I accept that there is a big problem with a different approach unless the G20 agree. But economics isn't science: it is opinion, based on a vastly simplified past history, with a dressing of maths in some cases to look better.   I've always liked the quotation from Galbraith, who was, as we know, an economist: "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."

So much of economics is no more than fashion, in my view. That's not to dismiss it by the way: fashion has a much more significant effect on life than we usually admit. But it is also the nature of fashion that it changes, often rapidly and unexpectedly. The orthodoxy that came in with Reagan and Thatcher was far from the standard view before then.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:06 AM

"I see no mention of Corbyn's ties to holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright antisemites"
Is there evidence of such connections or have you been overdosing on the Daily Mail again Bruce?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:06 AM

I realise that still sounds like I am being dismissive of economists. That's unfair: while not an economist myself I worked for years in a team where everyone else was a professional economist, as was my father-in-law, so I've been talked to a lot about it.

But there are serious alternatives to the financial economics we are used to, and even Cameron played around with it a bit, though he got soundly ridiculed for it, a little unfairly. One is 'Happiness economics' (see Wiki), which says there are other things that matter:
"The economics of happiness or happiness economics is the quantitative and theoretical study of happiness, positive and negative affect, well-being, quality of life, life satisfaction and related concepts, typically combining economics with other fields such as psychology and sociology. It typically treats such happiness-related measures, rather than wealth, income or profit, as something to be maximized. The field has grown substantially since the late 20th century, for example by the development of methods, surveys and indices to measure happiness and related concepts. Its findings have been described as a challenge to the economics profession"

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:24 AM

There was also an article in The Guardian which made similar assertions of anti-sematism, but the copy editor decided to make the subtitle "Corbyn may not have an antisemitic bone in his body, but he does share platforms with people who do".

I've linked to the article, so form your own opinion. However I give you mine. It is not antisemetic to criticise Israel's policies. It is not antisemetic to speak to others who oppose Israel. Antisematism is racism, and like all other forms of racism it is no more and no less than attacking a person in some form because they are Jewish, or Indian, or African ... It is completely unrelated to whether Israel is or is not in breach of UN resolutions, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:58 AM

" It is not antisemetic to criticise Israel's policies"
It miost certainly is not, in fact, the European definition of antisemitism states clearly that it is Antisemitic to identify Ireal's actions to the Jewish people - making those who accuse critics of Israel of being Antisemitic - Antisemitic.
As the British Government not only friendly with States with Antisemitic policies such as Saudi Arabia, but sells weapons to them - the logic of this nonsense is that Briish people have nobody to vote for.
These twots simply don't think through their stupidly cowardly claims.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 05:28 AM

DMcG 15 August 4:06 am.......One of the best posts I've ever seen on this forum, and very, very important if we wish to change society.

Just what I've been trying to promote in my own clumsy way.

As a society over the last seventy years we have become, in general terms better off financially......but the "happiness quotient" has diminished as we gained self reliance through relative prosperity.

It's a case of "what we have been encouraged to want, is not always good for us.".....People require a purpose in life to be really happy.

There is talk this morning of Blair or his acolyte D Milliband returning to save the Labour Party, or rebrand it as the "gang of four" did to set up the SDP.

I don't think this will happen as an outright victory for any single Party in the next election, looks unlikely.
I think the party will split into smaller groupings and with proportional representation, socialism may gain a small voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 11:08 AM

"As a society over the last seventy years we have become, in general terms better off financially.."
Superficially - and even then, only some of of society.
After the war the Labour Government embarked on a programme of improvements for working people - largely opposed by the Tories - National Health, Social housing and a massive programme of slum clearance
In 1946, Social Security was developed to cover unemployment and old age pensions at a survival level
During that period, the Trades Union movement was able to win better conditions for working people and more security of employment.
The Thatcher regime put a stop to most of that - it silenced any say the worker had in his job, undermined security of employment, whittled away unemployment benefit and virtually destroyed social housing by turning homes into commodities, conning council tenants into believing that by owning their own homes meant that had a potential profit-making commodity - "we were all capitalists now".
During the Depression, 2 million people were unemployed, the Government has recently announced that unemployment in Britain has NOW DROPPED TO 1.9 MILLION, THE LOWEST IN SIX YEARS some "better off financially"!!
The choice of policies between the various political parties has virtually disappeared - not only are they different shades of the same, but Governments are now based on compromise rather than policies of improvement and genuine change, largely via coalitions.
The gap between rich and poor has widened enormously, homelessness has increased and workers no longer have any security of tenure - this is how prosperity should be judged - not by the superficiality of televisions or mobile phones or holidays abroad - whether you can feed, clothe and educate your family and keep them in reasonable health.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM

Very flattering, ake, but you know I wouldn't rate anything I posted as much above average, never mind that significant.

There is another branch of economics dealing with the rather oddly named hedonistic models, (because that's not people usually imagine hedonism to denote). These also attempt to include more quality of life factors, even though they remain at heart financial [I think: I am no expert].

But even if you only think about classical economics, there is a great deal of scope for getting different answers depending what you do and don't include. For example, when considering whether to close a local hospital you may well get a different answer if to take into account travelling time of patients and relatives to the next nearest hospital accounting for their additional travelling time at say, minimum wage; or adding the impact of any deterioration in the travel times on nearby motorways on the businesses that use them. Musket may well know how much such things are taken into account, I don't. But I can certainly see how what you choose to count and ignore could be very influential on the conclusion you come to, even with 'text book' economics.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 12:39 PM

I thought I did but using a mirror to see the scars down my back, I sometimes wonder.

Economists are of course the types of people who see something working in practice and wonder if it can work in theory.

I'll tell you what though, regarding the international picture. I used to find it easier to safeguard British jobs as Euro harmonisation increased. It isn't a level playing field but it is more level than when I became a director of a company in the '80s. The jobs we created came with confidence in our markets.

Conversely, when interfering in The NHS in more recent years, national politics have been a huge factor but my concern isn't MPs kissing babies, it's wondering where The NHS is going to meet demand in the light of promises successive governments have failed to deliver.

I genuinely see no answers in Corbyn. To be fair, Cooper isn't impressing me with her health plans either and she was the then junior minister who appointed me to chair a board spending half a billion of their cash..

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:27 PM

The essential difference with Corbyn is that he appears genuinely to believe in a more open and democratic way of shaping the policies of the Labour Party. The actual solutions he favours will have to make their way within that kind of process, not laid down on high and presented to the party as fixed dogma to which they are committed come what may.

It is likely enough that not all the things he'd like to see the party adopt will be adopted, but they will be argued, along with the other ideas and policies.

The same goes for his actual job as leader.. A democratised Labour Party would not feel obliged to stick to a leader set to lose, as the election approached, in the same way as last time. And it seems pretty likely that Jeremy Corbyn would be quite open to stepping aside if that was how it looked.

Concentrating all the attention on an election that is five years away is not too bright. There is important work to be done right now, to build a movement with the same kind of energy and confidence that the SNP has demonstrated in Scotland - and the indications are that Corbyn is the only candidate with any hope of enabling that to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 05:55 PM

The "Blairites" have nothing in common with Jeremy or socialism, no matter how electable they may be.
To progress, the party must split and the socialist wing start changing peoples minds.....it is perfectly possible, but will take time and patience and I don't suppose many of us will see it.

Under this system, Labour will always be a party of opposition no matter how many MP's they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 06:40 PM

Without electoral reform Labour's future is pretty dire. One way and another the Scots aren't going to avaiable to even the balance, wther as Labour or as SNP. Either Scotland will be independant, or the Tories will have pushed through changes which will neuter their effective. Influence in Westminster.

With electoral reform we'd see a realignment of politics, so that the coalitions would between smaller parties rather than within big parties.

I suspect a rerun of the referendum on the Alternative Vote might produce a very different result. People always talk about that as a massive vote of confidence in FPTP, but in fact the turnout was only 42%, which meant that only one in four people voted that way.

I can't see an SDP type split - but if Corbyn wins there probably will be an organised right-wing Labour group within parliament, an opposition within the opposition. And of course they'll accuse the left of being splitters...

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 01:18 AM

Being called Socialist or otherwise is irrelevant. Being electable is all. It means you have policies and a philosophy that appeals to voters.

We have a word for it. The word is democracy.

Corbyn and his ideas are a welcome shake up to the system in the same way SNP are with their "prosperity through equality" tag, but like SNP, he carries a political overview that would be disastrous if allowed to happen. Luckily, in Scotland, the majority of people clipped their wings in the referendum. Corbyn would have to wait for the next election to see how deluded he is.

And frankly, the Tories put ideology before pragmatism every single day. A further term of them at the next election? Under Boris or Osborn?

Support Corbyn and find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 01:45 AM

I also think a split is unlikely, but I can't say the reasons are especially cheering. Let's look at the position of deputy, for a start. They are all saying they will work with whoever the voters pick as leader. Now, democratically speaking that's all very laudable, but it does mean they are happy to make the case that privatising the power companies is essential or absolutely insane, depending who gets picked. Which rather smacks of an attitude that getting the job is more important than anything else.

And I suspect we will find the same in the lower ranks. To split, you need a set of principles that you think your party has turned against and that you believe the populous will support. If the vote turns out anything like the predictions - and it may not - I can't see how a potential splitter would think there was a groundswell for Blairism, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 02:08 AM

Being electable is all. It means you have policies and a philosophy that appeals to voters.

Yes and no, Musket. There are two ways you can do that; either trim your policies so that you are electable or convince the electorate that the policies you have are ones they should vote for. The Blairite approach was very much the former. Corbyn is attempting the latter, and while he very much wants to win in 2020, I suspect that when it comes down to it he would feel that convincing people of the rightness of his policies is more important, and if that took longer than five years, well, it does.

And we must not leave time out of the equation. There is always the pressure for a change just because the government is getting tired.

But I think McGrath makes an excellent point. The changes in Scotland probably do make it essential that Labour wins in England if it is to have any chance of future power, and the evidence for that is very scarce indeed, both recently and historically.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 02:23 AM

I mentioned elsewhere that Andy Burnham's promotional video disappeared for a while. It is back and can be seen at www.andy4labour.co.uk

While I think the actual manifesto is quite good, I am afraid the video he put with it will do him no favours. He does not come across well, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 04:09 AM

(The real me). Bloody shame that the fight isn't between Chuka Umunna and Stella Creasy. Now that would have call-me Dave sweating. Now where's me cookie...

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 04:15 AM

"Being electable is all. "
That has been the approach of the Liberal Democrats for years, and look what happened to them - no policies and no credibility.
Labour in Ireland has thrown in their lot with Fine Gael the dominant shower of shit, by forming a coalition with them, and guess what - they are now an enthusiastic part of the process of throwing water-tax protesters in jail - in doing go, they have lost all their traditional support and I doubt if they will ever win it back.
Blair became "electable" and turned into and international criminal with his "weapons of mass-destruction".
Being electable means S.F.A if you don't have the principles and policy to back it up and if you are prepared to water down your real intentions in order to fool the electorate into voting for you it is a pretty fair indication you have neither.
Politics has now become a game of win-at-all-costs by people who don't give a fuck, and the results on the country are to be seen in increasing poverty and homelessness and an employment figure approaching that of the Depression.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:08 AM

If the figures on this website are to believed, I'd better retract what I said about the lack of evidence of Labour being able to win in England without Scotland. It would take a little time to work through them so I haven't bothered, but they all claim to be based on published official data.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:23 AM

Jim as ever misses the point.

You offer your vision but you govern on behalf of all.

I notice Corbyn gave a pro business speech the other day, supporting enterprise and acknowledging the message CBI and others shout.

I suppose that alone shatters the vision for our armchair socialists whilst giving Corbyn a smatter of credibility with normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:25 AM

Guessing games about what will happen in an election five years down the road are a bit pointless. Opinion polls, for what they are worth don't give Labour much chance, whoever is leader, but than they aren't really measuring anything real. In fact even on those Corbyn scores better than the others - only 21% predict him winning in 2020, but that's better than the predictions for the others, with 19% for Burnham, 15% for Cooper and 11% for KendLl.

And the truth is, nobody knows. When the Tories picked Margaret Thatcher as leader that was generally seen as disastrous for them.