Blairites staging a coup...

[Stom]

People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If heisn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.

Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?

[Donny osmond]

What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.

Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?

Well, if he was intelligent enough to be a leader then he would've changed the transcript...?

But Ok, you want another example, witness his bullshit attempt to support an EU remain campaign that he clearly disagreed with.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Digby]

Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

At least to inspire anyone who doesn't already firmly agree with him. If Labour really want to run a candidate that far to the left they need to put in the grass roots wok to build support for such ideology, showing people they can deliver. It'd probably have to start at a local level, it could take decades, and it may never work - but without it they're just too out of touch with how the electorate will vote even if in the next election they won every Scottish seat, and there's seemingly no chance they'll do that.

I'd vote Labour if my choice was David Milliband Vs Andrea Leadsome, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one. But that's where Labour would need to position themselves, and what the alternative would need to be for me to act in such fashion. There's not a bat in hell's chance of getting middle England to vote Corbyn even against a two term austerity Conservative government, and without a strong centrist vote there's just no way to win an election

[Digby]

Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?

Well, if he was intelligent enough to be a leader then he would've changed the transcript...?

But Ok, you want another example, witness his bullshit attempt to support an EU remain campaign that he clearly disagreed with.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I tend to think he'd have reviewed the speech himself given it was an important presentation to make clear he wasn't a racist, to make a fresh start and to get his leadership of the party up and running. Even if he didn't, and more fool him if so, he's in charge of who his advisers and speech writers are.

[Sandydragon]

Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

At least to inspire anyone who doesn't already firmly agree with him. If Labour really want to run a candidate that far to the left they need to put in the grass roots wok to build support for such ideology, showing people they can deliver. It'd probably have to start at a local level, it could take decades, and it may never work - but without it they're just too out of touch with how the electorate will vote even if in the next election they won every Scottish seat, and there's seemingly no chance they'll do that.

I'd vote Labour if my choice was David Milliband Vs Andrea Leadsome, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one. But that's where Labour would need to position themselves, and what the alternative would need to be for me to act in such fashion. There's not a bat in hell's chance of getting middle England to vote Corbyn even against a two term austerity Conservative government, and without a strong centrist vote there's just no way to win an election

Nailed it.

Take apart the champagne socialists and the genuine lefties across the country, and there isn't enough support for the Labour party to win a GE. Scotland probably won't return to them many seats next time around. They will continue to do well in London, but the rest of England just won't provide them enough seats unless they look to tempt middle class voters across to them. Corbin and his mates are incapable of doing that. Corbin can talk to his supports, i.e. those who are already signed up to his philosophy, but he can't convert people.

All the Tories have to do at the moment is appear to be vaguely competent and they will win the next GE.

[Zhivago]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

[Sandydragon]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

[Zhivago]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

[Zhivago]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

[Digby]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

I noted somewhere else that Labour already hold 90 something (93 I think) of the 100 constituencies with the lowest voter turnout in the country. So even if Corbyn is correct, and that's a big if, the biggest impact he could expect to have is to lose marginal seats and win some safe Labour seats with bigger majorities. How trailing by over a hundred seats, being likely to lose seats, and having no chance to take back Scotland isn't going to see a leader dropped in the merde it seems only Jeremy, John, Diane and oddly the Unions don't get.

[Sandydragon]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

[Zhivago]

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

Funny, because his words on pacifism are "No, I wouldn’t describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war, as absolutely a very last resort." To me, that seems a reasonable position to take, and doesn't sound like a 'blanket support of pacifism'... would you not agree?

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

[Zhivago]

And regarding this 20% nomination rule - of course it doesn't include the leader, otherwise he'd just resign and use the 12.5% rule that's there for when there's a vacancy. Horribly anti-democratic attempt, and should fail miserably if there's any justice left in the world.

[Sandydragon]

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

Funny, because his words on pacifism are "No, I wouldn’t describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war, as absolutely a very last resort." To me, that seems a reasonable position to take, and doesn't sound like a 'blanket support of pacifism'... would you not agree?

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

He also ruled out using nuclear weapons at any point. That's not something to make public.

He has also voted against every use of force by the west, including the liberation of Kuwait. In fact he went out of his way to try to stop the war once it had started.

Actions speak louder than words, no?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

[Sandydragon]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

I'll spare your astonishment. It seems they are just as culpable. I suspect that rules need to be clarified.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/16/labou ... -spending/

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

I'll spare your astonishment. It seems they are just as culpable. I suspect that rules need to be clarified.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/16/labou ... -spending/

there's no culpability. expenditure like that clearly isn't local. If you wheel in lots of National politicians then it's part of the national campaign, even if the local MP is there as well. The only question I'd have is whether there are big posters with the local candidate on them with national slogans on. That would seem to me to be local campaigning so it would be accounted for locally.

[Digby]

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

Hard to say when I don't recall him setting out an alternative budget, but based on past statements printing money to fund capital investment through a national investment bank, national maximum wage, cutting tax relief in a fashion which drops R&D by around 150% the value of the tax relief, the way too high figures he spouts on tax not collected due to fraud/avoidance, building social homes and boosting home ownership, the assumption that the markets will be fine with his radical reform and indeed his observation that under his watch and as per of his legacy there need be radical reform rather than laying some groundwork.

If you want specifics then ask JC to tell us some over his vague waffling in values in lieu of saying anything (though hardly just a problem in Corbyn)

[kk67]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

Yes.
The rural UK seems so happy with a corrupt status quo. I say status quo,....but they've just taken a massive leap into the dark.
It seems that their desire for a status quo has led them down,.....down, down,....

I was wondering how the Landed Gentry had managed to convince their serfs to vote away their EU subsidy....it's amazing how potent the immigrant card can be in rural communities.
We really aren't that different to the US. When you see how New Yorkers view the rest of their country you do feel for them.

[UGagain]

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

Hard to say when I don't recall him setting out an alternative budget, but based on past statements printing money to fund capital investment through a national investment bank, national maximum wage, cutting tax relief in a fashion which drops R&D by around 150% the value of the tax relief, the way too high figures he spouts on tax not collected due to fraud/avoidance, building social homes and boosting home ownership, the assumption that the markets will be fine with his radical reform and indeed his observation that under his watch and as per of his legacy there need be radical reform rather than laying some groundwork.

If you want specifics then ask JC to tell us some over his vague waffling in values in lieu of saying anything (though hardly just a problem in Corbyn)

Where do you think money comes from?

How else do sovereign governments with fiat currencies spend money?

They spend it into existence by marking up accounts in the banking system by keystroke then they tax most of it out of existence. What's left behind is the net savings of the non-government sector aka the deficit.

There's nothing scary about it, the sky won't fall and given the vast idle resources lying around will have no inflationary effect.

[UGagain]

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

Funny, because his words on pacifism are "No, I wouldn’t describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war, as absolutely a very last resort." To me, that seems a reasonable position to take, and doesn't sound like a 'blanket support of pacifism'... would you not agree?

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

He also ruled out using nuclear weapons at any point. That's not something to make public.

He has also voted against every use of force by the west, including the liberation of Kuwait. In fact he went out of his way to try to stop the war once it had started.

Actions speak louder than words, no?

A rather large part of the population agree with all those stances.

(The "liberation of Kuwait" is a joke right?)

This is democracy, dude. You don't get to decide what other people can vote for.

You can pretend that his landslide victory and the huge numbers of new and returned Labour Party members mean nothing. But it's just wishful thinking at best.

People have seen through neoliberalism and the warmongering.

You apparently still think that the economy depends on the rich. Not everyone is so naive.

[UGagain]

Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

Care to to link to your source on that?

[UGagain]

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

I'm not sure I'd favour an economy that were only a tiny percentage of what it might otherwise be, but if it were state controlled and you buy and sell from and to the state it'd be a reasonable claim there'd be no need for taxes and the state could just pay you net.

Nonsense.

Taxes are how the currency issuer removes its currency (government liabilities) from the economy and the banking system.

[UGagain]

It's not my views I want anyone to recognise. It's reality. I don't care if you agree with my views, unless I'm trying to get elected which isn't going to happen...

The problem is one of brainwashing, though. You read certain media, hear certain media, watch certain media. All that media spouts the same information. All that information goes against the truth. However much you want to dress it up, recent economic policy has been completely arse about face. No matter whether you're right wing or left wing, if you're not already well off, economic policy will hurt you.

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

This is of course a load of lies.

Living standards, especially for the bottom 30% have been declining steadily under the neoliberal cosh since 1975/6 ish. Unemployment has been way above historical trend over the entire period.

Since the GFC living standards for the bottom 90% are declining, while the fortunes (and the political influence/social power) of the .01% sky rocket.

There are more people living in poverty today than at any time in human history.

Having a few entertainment products is not the same as achieving a high standard of living.

People have seen through this Tory spin and they're voting against it.

You're going to have to come up with some new fables.