/ Owen Smith...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Shani - on 13 Sep 2016
...less appealing than Ed Milliband?
Babika - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

who cares

he's only trying to be more appealing than Jeremy C
1
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Babika:


> he's only trying to be more appealing than Jeremy C

Not setting a very high bar there.

10
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:
I think there's a mould of politician which is male and youngish and 'shiny'. Appearance and 'media manner' perhaps shouldn't be what we judge our politicians on, but what they say instead and their policies.
Post edited at 22:27
1
Shani - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:
> I think there's a mould of politician which is male and youngish and 'shiny'. Appearance and 'media manner' perhaps shouldn't be what he judge our politicians on, but what they say instead.

He's only recently started channeling Corbynesque policies. He's a poor Corbyn, just as Milliband was a poor Tory, and lacks authenticity.

Labour look pretty fooked at the moment. Shocking when you have three muppets running Brexit (planning to Brexit WITHOUT a trade agreement in place), a PM taking us back to 1953 and at a time when UK inflation remains unchanged at 0.6% despite over £60bn of money being printing each year on average for the last seven years. And what do we have to show for it?
Post edited at 22:31
1
wbo - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

You've taken your country back!!!!

Bully beef and brown beer all round!!
2
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:
> And what do we have to show for it?

Stalinist training camps!

> Jeremy Corbyn has promised a raft of new “organising academies” to train Labour activists for the next election, as his leadership rival Owen Smith accused him of being “delusional” about the party’s chances of beating the Conservatives in 2020.

> The Labour leader set out plans on Tuesday for a new training camp for Labour members in every region of the UK in order to help turn many of the hundreds of thousands of new joiners into active community organisers.

> Corbyn said the plan would put the party’s 500,000 members at the front of Labour’s strategy to win the next general election, claiming it “represents the single biggest commitment by any political party in British history to aid in the learning and training of its members”.
Post edited at 22:55
7
BnB - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

> He's only recently started channeling Corbynesque policies. He's a poor Corbyn, just as Milliband was a poor Tory, and lacks authenticity.

> Labour look pretty fooked at the moment. Shocking when you have three muppets running Brexit (planning to Brexit WITHOUT a trade agreement in place), a PM taking us back to 1953 and at a time when UK inflation remains unchanged at 0.6% despite over £60bn of money being printing each year on average for the last seven years. And what do we have to show for it?

A growing economy? ;-)
1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd: "I think there's a mould of politician.."

a soft, green or grey growth that develops on old food or on objects that have been left for too long in warm, wet air:

Yep, I agree...plenty like that ;-)
Lord_ash2000 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

> ...less appealing than Ed Milliband?

Probably yes.

But right now I think it's more damage limitation that genuinely hoping to win an election any time soon. I think as far as 2020 goes it's probably already to late, too much damage done regardless of who the leader is going into it.

What they want to be doing is let Corbyn and his follows branch off into yet another far left movement and get back to business as usual as soon as possible. Giving themselves as much time as possible to rebuild and get some sort of unified front together and a real policy which people will actually buy into so come 2025 they might have a realistic hope of winning. And by "people" I mean the middle ground swing voters, in marginal constituencies, the sort of people who have and do vote Tory sometimes. Until Labour gets it self in a place where people like that aren't just laughing at them they'll never have a hope in a general election.

2
Jim C - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Babika:

> who cares

> he's only trying to be more appealing than Jeremy C

Being marginally more appealing the JC will not get them in power, they need a figure that is seen a PM material, so the whole Labour leadership race is a complete waste of time and they might as well stick with JC until the get a suitable candidate, not just one that is (arguably) not as bad as the present leader.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> What they want to be doing is let Corbyn and his follows branch off into yet another far left movement and get back to business as usual as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, Corbyn and his followers want the existing infrastructure of the Labour party, so starting a new party is not on their agenda, and they are seemingly indifferent to a Labour bloodbath at the next GE as a consequence.
1
John_Hat - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> ...they might as well stick with JC until the get a suitable candidate, not just one that is (arguably) not as bad as the present leader.

Agreed. Is JC, in my opinion, a great leader for the labour party? No.

Unfortunately, the rest of the PLP have had numerous attempts to find an alternative and have failed to find anyone credible. This does not exactly fill me with confidence.

So until the future leader comes out of the woodwork they may as well stick with JC, and support him, and get on with attacking the tories rather than waste time with plots, coups and leadership elections, or whining to the Guardian (or anyone else who will listen and print) how horrible the boss is.
Post edited at 12:44
Toccata on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

I have argued for a 'new candidates please' in the vote for those of us who think both are hopeless.

KevinD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> And by "people" I mean the middle ground swing voters, in marginal constituencies, the sort of people who have and do vote Tory sometimes.

Out of curiosity what do you think should happen to all the traditional voters whose interests might be opposed to those swing voters? What happens when they realise that Labour no longer represents them.
The New NickB - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

The question is do the interests of those swing voters oppose the interests of 'traditional' Labour voters. Surely Labour needs a leader that convinced people that they represent the best interests of the vast majority of the population. What is a 'traditional' Labour voter anyway, it is already a very broad church.
RyanOsborne - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Stalinist training camps!

Get a grip.
1
Lord_ash2000 - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> And by "people" I mean the middle ground swing voters, in marginal constituencies, the sort of people who have and do vote Tory sometimes.

> Out of curiosity what do you think should happen to all the traditional voters whose interests might be opposed to those swing voters? What happens when they realise that Labour no longer represents them.

I don't think it'll matter much to the traditional Labour voter because the traditional labour voter (the people who have voted for Labour through Milliband, Brown, Blair years etc) probably aren't relating much to what Corbyn has to say either. If Labour want to win they've got to be getting votes from those in the centre left to centre ground at the very least. There is no point gaining a handful of voters from the far left if you lose the critical votes from the far larger centre ground voters.

Until Labour's reach is enough to start making middle of the road voters who voted tory last time think about switching to Labour this time, they haven't a hope.
Post edited at 15:49
KevinD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I don't think it'll matter much to the traditional Labour voter because the traditional labour voter (the people who have voted for Labour through Milliband, Brown, Blair years etc) probably aren't relating much to what Corbyn has to say either.

That the membership is growing again would indicate otherwise. There was a significant collapse in Labour core voters over the Blair years. How many will be recovered and how many remain disillusioned with politics or going to parties which claim to represent them better though is any ones guess.

> If Labour want to win they've got to be getting votes from those in the centre left to centre ground at the very least. There is no point gaining a handful of voters from the far left if you lose the critical votes from the far larger centre ground voters.

The centre ground are different from the swing voters who can decide elections. As the Lib dems show the centre ground vote is fairly small.
I am also not sure why you keep talking about Far Left. It requires a rather distorted view to consider the majority of his positions as anywhere close to that. That they can be portrayed as far left is in itself a problem with the chase the swing voters approach since it can allow the centre ground to be moved considerably.
1
Shani - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

> A growing economy? ;-)

Absolutely. But NOT a recovery.
1
colinakmc - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:
> I think there's a mould of politician which is male and youngish and 'shiny'. Appearance and 'media manner' perhaps shouldn't be what we judge our politicians on, but what they say instead and their policies.

I think we lost that argument in the Blair years.
Post edited at 07:49
krikoman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to colinakmc:

> I think we lost that argument in the Blair years.

Maybe it's time that was reset.
krikoman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
> I don't think it'll matter much to the traditional Labour voter because the traditional labour voter (the people who have voted for Labour through Milliband, Brown, Blair years etc) probably aren't relating much to what Corbyn has to say either.

Which is probably why Labour party membership is now 600,000 the highest ever. How do you come up with a statement like that without ANY evidence whatsoever?

If Labour want to win they've got to be getting votes from those in the centre left to centre ground at the very least. There is no point gaining a handful of voters from the far left if you lose the critical votes from the far larger centre ground voters.

Firstly It's hardly FAR left what's being proposed, secondly without the base, which the PLP seem to be trying to disenfranchise, the middle ground voters mean nothing. Again where's your proof of a FEW far right voters? How about the raise in membership is the tip of a very large iceberg, I know this doesn't fit with what you'd like to be true, or the media would have you believe. But just for a moment think about what if this is true, the number of people invigorated enough to join Labour, more than the other parties put together. There all loony lefties are they?

> Until Labour's reach is enough to start making middle of the road voters who voted tory last time think about switching to Labour this time, they haven't a hope.

Again you still need a base to start from, lose your base and all the floaters are worthless.
Post edited at 10:28
1
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Which is probably why Labour party membership is now 600,000 the highest ever.
> How about the raise in membership is the tip of a very large iceberg,

or perhaps it's just a few hundred thousand people who had no interest in politics before, mainly far far left who disliked all the other less left, centre and right parties. They only emerged out of the woodwork with Corbyn. So there is no tip of the iceberg, it's a flat plank and you can already see everything there is to see.

But, whilst the party gains a few extreme left members, the people who do vote and have been for decades are moving away from labour. Didn't labour lose a by election a month or so ago to the LibDems? If the labour movement is so strong shouldn't they have at least held the seat, or even gained votes, instead they lost in all respects.
3
MG - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Which is probably why Labour party membership is now 600,000 the highest ever. How do you come up with a statement like that without ANY evidence whatsoever?

Short of a GE, what evidence would be acceptable to you, since you seem to reject any polling evidence as unreliable?
1
KevinD - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> or perhaps it's just a few hundred thousand people who had no interest in politics before, mainly far far left who disliked all the other less left, centre and right parties.

Do you honestly think there are a few hundred thousand far left supporters? Unless you are using a USA variant of the left/right divide it seems somewhat unlikely.

> Didn't labour lose a by election a month or so ago to the LibDems? If the labour movement is so strong shouldn't they have at least held the seat, or even gained votes, instead they lost in all respects.

There werent any MP byelections. There have been several council seat byelections. Which one in particular were you thinking about? Just to see whether it is one they lost in all respects and, indeed, if it was one they could be realistically expected to win.
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Do you honestly think there are a few hundred thousand far left supporters? Unless you are using a USA variant of the left/right divide it seems somewhat unlikely.

Nope, it's probably an over estimate, many of the new members are probably Tories, guaranteeing the future of their party in power. ;)

> There werent any MP byelections. There have been several council seat byelections. Which one in particular were you thinking about? Just to see whether it is one they lost in all respects and, indeed, if it was one they could be realistically expected to win.

never said an MP, I said election. Either way, labour lost to the lib dems, seems the momentum, doesn't have any just yet. http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/07/29/no-a-corbynite-takeover-didn-t-cause-labour-s-...
To be fair, the party were so disorganised and problem strewn, they didn't even get around to putting forward a candidate, despite it previously being a labour council for 24 years. Is this how labour will run the country under Corbyn? ;)
Post edited at 10:56
1
Sir Chasm - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

It would be interesting to know how many of Labour's new members didn't vote Labour at the last election. If they voted labour anyway then the fact they've joined the party is irrelevant, but if they've been inspired to both join the party and to change their vote (or to actually vote at all) then that's a bit more interesting.
Anecdotally, the people I know who joined were already Labour voters.
KevinD - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Nope, it's probably an over estimate, many of the new members are probably Tories, guaranteeing the future of their party in power. ;)

I am not sure whether that is any more nutty as claiming it is all the far left.

> To be fair, the party were so disorganised and problem strewn, they didn't even get around to putting forward a candidate, despite it previously being a labour council for 24 years. Is this how labour will run the country under Corbyn? ;)

I do get really confused by the all out love and all out hate displayed by some for Corbyn. This is a perfect example.
It was a Labour seat not a council since that area is dominated by the tories. They didnt get a candidate for whatever reason. It is unclear why but that article doesnt cast blame in any particular direction and seems reasonably well informed. So as a measure of deciding if it is a disaster or not it is useless.

krikoman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> It would be interesting to know how many of Labour's new members didn't vote Labour at the last election. If they voted labour anyway then the fact they've joined the party is irrelevant, but if they've been inspired to both join the party and to change their vote (or to actually vote at all) then that's a bit more interesting.

> Anecdotally, the people I know who joined were already Labour voters.

It would be interesting you're right.

Anecdotally, the people I know were anything but Tory, but that's hardly surprising. Though I'd still say that getting 600,000 is no mean feat and if nothing else has shown that a lot of people are NOT happy with the status quo. That fact they were already Labour voters doesn't mean they aren't worth counting though either. That fact that so many have engaged, may help Labour in future elections. Or might just be an indication of a deeper need /want for change amongst the electorate as a whole.

Also, anecdotally the people I know aren't hard left loonies, which they are so often labelled.
Post edited at 11:23
krikoman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> Short of a GE, what evidence would be acceptable to you, since you seem to reject any polling evidence as unreliable?

I think a GE is an excellent way of gathering the evidence, let's do that.
neilh - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Let us hope that ordinary voters do not end up on some sort of list from Labour HO showing that they dislike labour.

Producing lists of people who do not like JC seems to be a habit of the current Leadership.

The latest list includes his own deputy leader for calling Momentum a rabble ,the likes of Frank Field ( very widely respected MP) and Jess Phillips.

You would thing that producing these lists is not really a good idea.

I wonder if when the JC was continually voting against the Labour Party whip if he was on some form of list, or did they just not worry about it.
1
MG - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

That's not an option just now. Given this and to be clear, you regard an increase in Labour Party membership as better evidence of JC's electability than opinion polls?
1
Sir Chasm - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> It would be interesting you're right.

> Anecdotally, the people I know were anything but Tory, but that's hardly surprising. Though I'd still say that getting 600,000 is no mean feat and if nothing else has shown that a lot of people are NOT happy with the status quo.

No, it shows us the Labour party has 600,000 members, nothing more than that.

> That fact they were already Labour voters doesn't mean they aren't worth counting though either. That fact that so many have engaged, may help Labour in future elections. Or might just be an indication of a deeper need /want for change amongst the electorate as a whole.

If they vote Labour in the next GE they'll help Labour. If they vote(d) Labour anyway the fact they joined the party is neither here nor there (apart from filling coffers).

> Also, anecdotally the people I know aren't hard left loonies, which they are so often labelled.

You need to address this to someone calling them the loony left.
Lord_ash2000 - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Which is probably why Labour party membership is now 600,000 the highest ever. How do you come up with a statement like that without ANY evidence whatsoever?

And how long do you think a lot of these new people have voted labour for? Most are either so young they have never been able to vote before or just swung in from the likes of the greens and the SWP etc or simply never bothered voting before. Hardly long standing 'traditional' Labour voters are they. It's the likes of UKIP who've hovered up a lot of them and damaged Labours base.


But of course its all just talk from both sides until we have a general election. At which point, when Corbyn's Labour sweep into power on a tidal wave of previously untapped support I'll gladly eat my hat, before selling everything I own, buying gold and going into hiding for 5 years.

Back in reality though I'm going to be so looking forward to that morning in 2020 when the likes of you wake up to the crushing truth of it all as Labour is wiped out, the Tory's take a huge majority and you realise your socialist dream is dead. At which point I'll laugh and say simply "I told you so" with a massive smug grin on my face. For now though, you just keep dreaming.


7
Sir Chasm - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> And how long do you think a lot of these new people have voted labour for? Most are either so young they have never been able to vote before or just swung in from the likes of the greens and the SWP etc or simply never bothered voting before. Hardly long standing 'traditional' Labour voters are they. It's the likes of UKIP who've hovered up a lot of them and damaged Labours base.

You don't know who they are (any more than krikoman knows who they are and why they joined), it's silly to pretend you do.

> But of course its all just talk from both sides until we have a general election. At which point, when Corbyn's Labour sweep into power on a tidal wave of previously untapped support I'll gladly eat my hat, before selling everything I own, buying gold and going into hiding for 5 years.

> Back in reality though I'm going to be so looking forward to that morning in 2020 when the likes of you wake up to the crushing truth of it all as Labour is wiped out, the Tory's take a huge majority and you realise your socialist dream is dead. At which point I'll laugh and say simply "I told you so" with a massive smug grin on my face. For now though, you just keep dreaming.

I'm going to wait until closer to the GE before I make my own simplistic predictions.
Lusk - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Back in reality though I'm going to be so looking forward to that morning in 2020 when the likes of you wake up to the crushing truth of it all as Labour is wiped out, the Tory's take a huge majority ...

I hope you choke on your champagne and caviar celebration breakfast.

I'm finding this all rather depressing, the prospect of endless Tory Governments stretching away into the future.
3
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

"Also, anecdotally the people I know aren't hard left loonies, which they are so often labelled."

Doesn't that depend on where the observer stands on the spectrum?
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> They didnt get a candidate for whatever reason. It is unclear why but that article doesnt cast blame in any particular direction and seems reasonably well informed. So as a measure of deciding if it is a disaster or not it is useless.

it was a labour council for 24years, he stood down or retired. The labour party for what ever reason couldn't, wouldn't even field any candidate. If that is not a definition of 'useless', then I'm not sure what is. When Corbyn's labour is wiped out across England like they did in Scotland and partially in Wales, will you still claim they are doing OK and are not useless?
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> I'm finding this all rather depressing, the prospect of endless Tory Governments stretching away into the future.

time for the labour leader to do some opposing, as the leader of the opposition. Not good spending his time in little halls talking to the hundred or so constituents who vote for him every time anyway. You know it's laughable when even the Tories say they need a better opposition, as they are completely unchallenged.

The tories will do as they please for at least 3 more years. Anyone who could put up a credible debate against them has disappeared while the party undergoes it's Corbyn phase, they'll reappear if Corbyn steps down in 2020.
flopsicle - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

Less appealing than my manky big toe nail if you ask me!

I can only see one course of events leaving Labour as tenable. JC to win leadership, JC to pick a successor - probably not the one he'd actually want but near enough to still engage his own support. New leader (with Corbyn's full support and support from those chuffed that Corbyn stood down) to fight the actual election.

I can't really see anything that convoluted happening - so we have bloody nutters in charge till 2024!
Lord_ash2000 - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> I'm finding this all rather depressing, the prospect of endless Tory Governments stretching away into the future.

Well, you'll have better luck convincing the Corbyn followers to stop hijacking the Labour party than I will. I'd like the Tory's to win the next GE but even I don't want Corbyn in opposition, it may be a free pass but I think politics only works with two strong parties battling it out and right now its not even sport.
RyanOsborne - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to neilh:

> You would thing that producing these lists is not really a good idea.

I'm about 100% sure that every leader of every political party on the planet has similar lists. Knowing who supports / opposes you is pretty standard information. Which is why whips exist in the government, for example.
stevieb - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to flopsicle:

Yes, this is what I really hoped would happen. Corbyn would lead the party for 3 years, take the flak and move the public debate to the left, while the rest of the PLP actually stood behind him on this understanding, and the momentum crowd actually aimed to get labour into power.
I don't think that hope lasted more than a week
KevinD - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> it was a labour council for 24years, he stood down or retired.

councillor not council. There is a rather big difference.

> When Corbyn's labour is wiped out across England like they did in Scotland and partially in Wales, will you still claim they are doing OK and are not useless?

Since I am not claiming that I am not quite sure what you are going on about. All I am stating is that the article, which again seems well informed and unbiased, doesnt cast the blame in any particular direction. It certainly doesnt support the use of it as an attack on Corbyn.
ads.ukclimbing.com
krikoman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Back in reality though I'm going to be so looking forward to that morning in 2020 when the likes of you wake up to the crushing truth of it all as Labour is wiped out, the Tory's take a huge majority and you realise your socialist dream is dead. At which point I'll laugh and say simply "I told you so" with a massive smug grin on my face. For now though, you just keep dreaming.

Very mature of you, you never know you might have grown up a bit before we get to 2020
1
RyanOsborne - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> the Tories say they need a better opposition, as they are completely unchallenged.

Theresa May didn't look very 'unchallenged' at yesterday's PMQ's. She looked like an unprepared fool trying to defend a terrible policy, which was quite easily destroyed by Corbyn with intelligent questions and quotes from experts.
3
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Theresa May didn't look very 'unchallenged' at yesterday's PMQ's. She looked like an unprepared fool trying to defend a terrible policy, which was quite easily destroyed by Corbyn with intelligent questions and quotes from experts.

I think most critics have said it is the first time Corbyn actually spoke out and challenged a policy. I think pundits put it at at one all draw. The bigger news, was it was the first time that most of his MPs even supported him, but I suspect it's short lived.

Are you suggesting that all the previous PMQs with Corbyn have been just like that?
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> councillor not council. There is a rather big difference.

It was a labour led council, where Labour gave away the seat to the LibDems by not fielding a candidate. Perhaps the locals liked a Labour candidate, as they provide local services, but a Tory MP as they prefer their national policy. Either way, it's LibDem now. The previous leader had also been Mayor, twice. So he had been both council leader and councillor during the previous few decades.

> It certainly doesnt support the use of it as an attack on Corbyn.

No, it picks fault with the labour party for not being able to field a candidate. Only labour know the reason why they gave the seat away.

andyfallsoff - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> I think most critics have said it is the first time Corbyn actually spoke out and challenged a policy. I think pundits put it at at one all draw.

Do you mean a draw for that session? The pundits I have seen pretty much all said it was a Corbyn victory (and I'm not a Corbyn fan generally, so this isn't just an "echo chamber" view).

> The bigger news, was it was the first time that most of his MPs even supported him, but I suspect it's short lived.

> Are you suggesting that all the previous PMQs with Corbyn have been just like that?

Agree with the rest of this. This is what Corbyn should have been doing all along - making targeted comments on key issues which people care about. The problem to my mind is that he hasn't, he just picks and chooses and misses the ball so often.

summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Do you mean a draw for that session? The pundits I have seen pretty much all said it was a Corbyn victory (and I'm not a Corbyn fan generally, so this isn't just an "echo chamber" view).

Perhaps it was, r4 seemed to pitch it more equally. Probably a good thing, tories will have to raise their game. I should really support Corbyn, would be great to see him wipe labour out in 2020, or perhaps force the need for another Tory/LibDem coalition. A tory party without the extreme far right views or policies.
neilh - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

I have yet to see a list circulated form either the Tories or others is the simple answer to that one. Have you? I never have.Please let me have an example.There has been in the past pretty serious blood letting in most parties to be similar ones leaked.

You are right, yes they will know who their enemies are. its par for the course in any political party.

But a list! Come on.Do me a favour

And Tom Watson on it, an elected deputy leader.
neilh - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

At least he is wearing a decent suit these days. Have you noticed its always dark blue. The image making has started.

KevinD - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> It was a labour led council

I may well be missing something but that article indicates its a seat on the district council which has been dominated by the tories for years. So it really wasnt a Labour led council.

> No, it picks fault with the labour party for not being able to field a candidate. Only labour know the reason why they gave the seat away.

I agree so why try and indicate its down to Corbyn?
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> he just picks and chooses and misses the ball so often.

Corbyn wouldn't score in a tory goal, even if you took the keeper out and stood him on the 6 yard line. It's not fair to have winner and losers. He'd rather both sides sit down and have a civilised talk, or perhaps ask if they've thought of sourcing their strips from an urban knitwear friend in Islington.
3
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> I agree so why try and indicate its down to Corbyn?

he is the party leader, voted in by the biggest majority ever blah blah blah..... If the buck doesn't stop there, where does it stop?
andyfallsoff - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Perhaps it was, r4 seemed to pitch it more equally. Probably a good thing, tories will have to raise their game. I should really support Corbyn, would be great to see him wipe labour out in 2020, or perhaps force the need for another Tory/LibDem coalition. A tory party without the extreme far right views or policies.

I don't really follow this - whatever your political leaning, do you really want labour to be wiped out? Isn't it good for a tory government to be held to account and challenged? Especially if you want a tory party without the far right bits. The weaker Labour is, the more those bits will thrive...
RyanOsborne - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> I think most critics have said it is the first time Corbyn actually spoke out and challenged a policy. I think pundits put it at at one all draw. The bigger news, was it was the first time that most of his MPs even supported him, but I suspect it's short lived.

Really? He didn't speak out and challenge academies? Or tax credit cuts? Or Austerity? Or bombing Syria? Maybe you just haven't been paying attention.

I'm not sure which pundits you're referring to, but I watched it, and I'd make it a 6-0 victory to Corbyn, as did every analysis / comment I saw. She didn't answer a single one of the questions, every attempt to confront the issue was pathetic, and her pre scripted jibes were cringe worthy and off topic, the nasty pasty at its best (worst).

> Are you suggesting that all the previous PMQs with Corbyn have been just like that?

I don't remember saying that.
neilh - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

The question is has JC got the political nous to use the grammar school issue as a means to really unite the party.

If he has then 1 0/10 and he can use this to show he has the foresight/capability of being the leader.

Its a good and serious test, as nobody in the Labour party supports grammar schools.

So whilst it as as much a problem for May( as I suspect some of her backbenchers will oppose it) , its a real political opportunity for him. Let us see if he rises to it.
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I don't really follow this - whatever your political leaning, do you really want labour to be wiped out? Isn't it good for a tory government to be held to account and challenged? Especially if you want a tory party without the far right bits. The weaker Labour is, the more those bits will thrive...

I could hope that the LibDems wake up some time soon and scoop up some of those voters from Labour. I do agree any government needs an opposition, otherwise you just have something more akin to voting in a new dictator every 5 years.
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Really? He didn't speak out and challenge academies? Or tax credit cuts? Or Austerity? Or bombing Syria? Maybe you just haven't been paying attention.

I must have missed that, along with 99% of the population, including most Labour MPs, most of whom were previously on his front bench and should have heard every second of it from just a few metres away.

Who have you been listening to, Diane Abbott?
RyanOsborne - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> I must have missed that, along with 99% of the population, including most Labour MPs, most of whom were previously on his front bench and should have heard every second of it from just a few metres away.

The population of Sweden, where you live?
summo on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:
> The population of Sweden, where you live?

I suspect he has the same chance of being PM here as in the UK.

ps. your not answering the question, his own MPs don't seem to think he is fighting labour's corner very well and they see much more of his actions in the Commons than the public ever will?
Post edited at 16:39
1
RyanOsborne - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:
Well your one (stupid) question was 'Who have you been listening to, Diane Abbott?' which doesn't warrant a response.

Have a read of this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsUTXUeXgAQL1Eq.jpg
Post edited at 16:48
1
Big Ger - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

This is of interest;

> By our reckoning, Labour’s leadership contest is going to be decided, for the most part, by less than 400,000 mainly middle-class university graduates. Nearly half of these members – unlike many of Labour’s voters – live in London and the South of England. Some 75 per cent of Labour members are ABC1 voters, and 57 per cent of them have a degree. Around 15 per cent live in London and 32 per cent live in other parts of the South of England. Only 28 per cent live in the party’s northern heartlands and 20 per cent in Wales and the Midlands, where (think, Nuneaton) any party wanting to win a general election desperately needs to win over voters.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/middle-class-university-graduates-will-decide-...
Dave the Rave on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> By our reckoning, Labour’s leadership contest is going to be decided, for the most part, by less than 400,000 mainly middle-class university graduates. Nearly half of these members – unlike many of Labour’s voters – live in London and the South of England. Some 75 per cent of Labour members are ABC1 voters, and 57 per cent of them have a degree. Around 15 per cent live in London and 32 per cent live in other parts of the South of England. Only 28 per cent live in the party’s northern heartlands and 20 per cent in Wales and the Midlands, where (think, Nuneaton) any party wanting to win a general election desperately needs to win over voters.
You can compare it to footballers playing for the home nations.
The good ones get to play for Engerlund (Tory squad),the rest take their chance with the other home nations in the hope of winning summat. Equally, they are all shite with self interest at the core of their motives.
krikoman - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:
> You can compare it to footballers playing for the home nations.

> The good ones get to play for Engerlund (Tory squad),the rest take their chance with the other home nations in the hope of winning summat. Equally, they are all shite with self interest at the core of their motives.

Eh?

What have the demographics of Labour members got to do with football, and why do you assume they have self interest at heart?

Very strange comment.


Also I don't understand the original data, is it supposed to be damning that 57% of them will supposedly have a degree. What is actually being said here, the "intellectuals" can't care enough about the society we live in? Or that "clever" people should keep out of politics.

It's the same when "socialism" is bandied about as some sort of insult!! The Labour party was built on socialist principles, the NHS is a socialist principle that was built by the Labour Party!
Post edited at 09:55
3
MonkeyPuzzle - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Also I don't understand the original data, is it supposed to be damning that 57% of them will supposedly have a degree.

I think the point is that that statistic doesn't exactly show the disaffected working class returning to Labour in their droves, does it? It's more that one neo-liberal metropolitan elite is being replaced by a socialist liberal metropolitan elite, whereas the working class and lower-middle class probably just want to know that they'll have a job that pays enough to offer them some kind of life.

I thought that this from the Beeb today was a pretty even-handed piece about Labour's predicament: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37372078
2
GrahamD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Are the "dissaffected working class" socialist in outlook these days ? the Brexit referendum seemed to have a good majority aligned behind UKIP. What they really seem to want is a protectionist party, not a socialist one.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

That was kind of my point.
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> The Labour party was built on socialist principles, the NHS is a socialist principle that was built by the Labour Party!

but it is 2016, it's not 1910 or the 1940/50s anymore. The world has changed, there is legislation in place that never existed in those eras etc... dragging the labour party back to 1910 is only go lose them voters and eventually (hoping) another party, perhaps a more central party, will appear that represents all people who want a fair society in the 21st century and beyond.
1
RyanOsborne - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> dragging the labour party back to 1910

What do you mean by this? Who is dragging the labour party back to 1910, and in what way?
2
KevinD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> but it is 2016, it's not 1910 or the 1940/50s anymore. The world has changed, there is legislation in place that never existed in those eras etc...

I am always confused when people go on about legislation existing. It seems to miss the rather obvious problem that legislation can be changed unless someone keeps fighting to retain it.

> dragging the labour party back to 1910 is only go lose them voters and eventually (hoping) another party, perhaps a more central party,

Firstly I am not quite sure where you get the idea of dragging back to 1910 from?
As for centrist parties. Libdems are doing well arent they?

2
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Firstly I am not quite sure where you get the idea of dragging back to 1910 from?

Ok, 1970s then. Corbyn's dreamy hayday.

> As for centrist parties. Libdems are doing well arent they?

That's because the UK doesn't really grasp coalitions, it's not exactly had many. It blamed the LibDems for what happened in the coalition era, when really the electorate should have grasped the LibDems were holding the Tories back or watering their more extreme plans down.
Yanis Nayu - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> I am always confused when people go on about legislation existing. It seems to miss the rather obvious problem that legislation can be changed unless someone keeps fighting to retain it.

> Firstly I am not quite sure where you get the idea of dragging back to 1910 from?

> As for centrist parties. Libdems are doing well arent they?

The LibDems still exist?
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> What do you mean by this? Who is dragging the labour party back to 1910, and in what way?

Well no one has moved labour anywhere, as they are leaderless, but there are some who seem to think it's 1910 with kids going up chimney, those evil work house bosses etc... I was more referring to the fact they seem to want to be union led, you can't have rights without a union and labour party. You can though, you simply vote for a politician or party that represent you. You don't need a union boss whose earning three or four times your wage to be a middle man.

None of the work place legislation on hours, H&S, etc.. that came via the EU is going to be suddenly dropped.
3
krikoman - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

1910?? I thing you need to check your history.

I'm well aware it's 2016 but that doesn't mean we have to forget about socialist principles, why is the NHS any less relevant now than last year or 50 years ago?

Why can't nationalised industries be valid in 2016? Even more so since we know the pitfalls of the past, why couldn't they be made to work today, for the whole country rather than shareholders?

Surely a nationalised steel industry and proper trade negotiations with the builders / inverters in Hinckley C would be a win win for the UK and employment. Instead no doubt we'll be buying in Chinese labour and materials for a British project.

We've put just about all our vital industries in the hands of foreign companies, electricity, water and steel. I just don't see the sense in it, besides short term gain for a piss poor government.

Not that Labour are without fault PFIs being particularly shit at helping schools and hospitals do their job.
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> The LibDems still exist?

there are about as well led as labour. They should be like a rash all over the press, everyday. This is the best chance to claw back some voters whilst labour is in disarray. Even though Clegg is out, he could have hung around to just push their PR front and help their new man get known nationally etc.. So they've not helped themselves at all.
1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> None of the work place legislation on hours, H&S, etc.. that came via the EU is going to be suddenly dropped.

No, it's going to be dropped quietly and gradually, so that no one kicks up too much of a stink,

Germany is a modern country which is very strong on workers' representation and they don't appear to be doing too badly.
krikoman - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Well no one has moved labour anywhere, as they are leaderless, but there are some who seem to think it's 1910 with kids going up chimney, those evil work house bosses etc... I was more referring to the fact they seem to want to be union led, you can't have rights without a union and labour party. You can though, you simply vote for a politician or party that represent you. You don't need a union boss whose earning three or four times your wage to be a middle man.

I don't see that anyone mentioned any of this, except you of course.

1
krikoman - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Even though Clegg is out, he could have hung around to just push their PR front

Clegg as their PR front, as you pissed?

Clegg did such a good job of destroying any credibility the LibDems ever had, by promising shit he didn't deliver, important shit at that.

He did the only honourable thing he could do.
3
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Ok 1900 then.

> socialist principles, why is the NHS any less relevant now than last year or 50 years ago?

Why does the NHS need a socialist government to fund it?

> Why can't nationalised industries be valid in 2016? Even more so since we know the pitfalls of the past, why couldn't they be made to work today, for the whole country rather than shareholders?

They can, if they are well managed, skilled staff, efficient. Many of the UK's previously nationalised industry fell to the way side because they were none of these and couldn't compete with overseas competitors.

> We've put just about all our vital industries in the hands of foreign companies, electricity, water and steel. I just don't see the sense in it, besides short term gain for a piss poor government.

Most of these were privatised years ago though, you can't undo history. If union influence hadn't made many of these so inefficient, perhaps governments would have been more tempted to hang to them for their revenue.

I agree in principle any country should control it's critical assets, like water and electricity.


4
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Clegg did such a good job of destroying any credibility the LibDems ever had, by promising shit he didn't deliver, important shit at that.

you mean Uni fees, but that is what happens in coalition, if you are minority party, you aren't going to have total say or control over government policy. Besides wasn't it labour who started tuition fees anyway?

The problem was the LibDems said and promised loads if they got into power, never actually thinking they would have to honour any of it, then suddenly they are in a coalition. It's no different now with Labour, or even the SNP and Scottish independence, you promise the world to get in, then try to work out how you'll manage to fund it later.
1
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
> Germany is a modern country which is very strong on workers' representation and they don't appear to be doing too badly.

never said they were. But are they doing well because of worker representation or is it just coincidence. Causation and Correlation?

I would suggest that in Germany, or just like in Sweden, Norway..., the mental psyche or way of societal thinking in general is different to the UK. It does not necessarily need unions or legislation to back it up. I imagine in Germany, just like Sweden all the work place legislation etc.. was in place long before the EU even applied it, as it's what the people wanted anyway.
Post edited at 12:34
3
KevinD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Ok, 1970s then. Corbyn's dreamy hayday.

Again some evidence of this. I do find it fascinating how well Corbyn can polarise some people. On the one hand there are some who unthinkingly cheer him on and on the other there are those who are unthinkingly ranting against him.
Anyway care to explain how this legislation is protected?

> That's because the UK doesn't really grasp coalitions, it's not exactly had many.

Actually it was more the Libdems were insanely incompetent. They failed on their key policies and didnt keep a sensible distance between the two parties.

4
KevinD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> as it's what the people wanted anyway.

From what I recall the German system was heavily influenced by the British post WWII.
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:
> never said they were. But are they doing well because of worker representation or is it just coincidence. Causation and Correlation?

The point being that worker representation hasn't been to their economic detriment.

> I would suggest that in Germany, or just like in Sweden, Norway..., the mental psyche or way of societal thinking in general is different to the UK. It does not necessarily need unions or legislation to back it up. I imagine in Germany, just like Sweden all the work place legislation etc.. was in place long before the EU even applied it, as it's what the people wanted anyway.

I would suggest that the selfish individualism currently enjoying its zenith (hopefully) in the UK is a relatively recent import and I'm sure that if it were shown to be to everyone's benefit, and not just on a financial basis, that taking care of one another and collective responsibility would be embraced as isn't alien to us at all.
Post edited at 12:51
3
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I would suggest that the selfish individualism currently enjoying its zenith (hopefully) in the UK is a relatively recent import and I'm sure that if it were shown to be to everyone's benefit, and not just on a financial basis, that taking care of one another and collective responsibility would be embraced as isn't alien to us at all.

it's self inflicted by the population itself. If people actually shopped themselves with a thought for others employment and welfare, amazon, starbucks, tescos etc.. would be barely be in business. Out of town retail parks would be deserted, high streets full of independents would be thriving. But, most people are selfish.

Everyone moans about zero hours contracts, then they buy online from companies that are known to hold thousands of workers on them, amazon, sports direct etc... People complained about British Steel, but then the tv footage of the steel plant and the workers exiting showed masses of cars leaving that weren't even assembled in the UK, never mind had parts built here.

summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> From what I recall the German system was heavily influenced by the British post WWII.

I wasn't talking about engineering or factory process. I mean society, family first, multi generational houses or family homes. If society in general values people at all level, ages, background etc.. then that is transferred over time to the work place. You don't have salaried workers doing 60hrs weeks to get on, never seeing their family. Decent paternity/maternity packages. Life isn't cheap, so places operate safely and efficiently, not just pushing for turnover and profit. End result, a happy, but also very productive work force.
Post edited at 15:53
1
Shani - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> But, most people are selfish.

Or are on minimal wages and zero hours contracts so are forced by economics to shop at Amazon etc...
ads.ukclimbing.com
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:
> Or are on minimal wages and zero hours contracts so are forced by economics to shop at Amazon etc...

the cycle could be broken pretty easily and quickly, if people were as patriotic in their shopping as they are with football or rugby.
Post edited at 16:05
MG - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> I do find it fascinating how well Corbyn can polarise some people....
> .....Actually it was more the Libdems were insanely incompetent.

It probably has a similar origin to your obsession with the LibDems being a disaster.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:
You didn't address Shani's point.
Post edited at 16:57
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani/monkeypuzzle:

> Or are on minimal wages and zero hours contracts so are forced by economics to shop at Amazon etc...

so the state should legislate against this? Ban different kinds of contracts etc... ? Increase minimum wage? Big brother controlling society, tell it how it should behave? Or perhaps those who can shop local should etc.. and people will the society that they deserve or create. I'm not professing to have the answer, only that we, the consumer have created the problem.
KevinD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> It probably has a similar origin to your obsession with the LibDems being a disaster.

Ah speaking of one of the fanatical anti Corbyn types.
Are you trying to argue, seriously, that their time in coalition wasnt a disaster? They could be excused if they had got any of their core policies through but as it stands they failed to get them in and failed to keep separation between themselves and the tories.
summo on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> failed to keep separation between themselves and the tories.

sounds like you are proving my theory that the UK doesn't yet grasp coalition politics. Coalition, joint, shared, partnership.... ie.. not them and us.
Post edited at 17:16
KevinD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> None of the work place legislation on hours, H&S, etc.. that came via the EU is going to be suddenly dropped.

evidence for this claim. Thats what all the complaints about red tape and bureacracy are about. Without someone fighting for them they will be chipped away at and diminished.
Just to take the working hours directive. That was passed in the EU in 1993 and only adopted in the UK in 1998 after defeat in court. The use of the opt out is far broader in the UK than anywhere else.
JJL - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:
I wonder how many of the 600000 actually vote for a different party and have joined for reasons other than genuinely supporting labour?

Libdem voter here
Post edited at 17:20
KevinD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> sounds like you are proving my theory that the UK doesn't yet grasp coalition politics. Coalition, joint, shared, partnership.... ie.. not them and us.

wrong. If you look at normal coalitions they dont have the ministerial collective responsibility which the Libdems mostly brought into with an occasional rebellion mostly from Vince Cable and then more generally in the last year or so when they realised the mistake.
MG - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

That's the odd thing. You lay into the LDs at every opportunity (despite their moderating influence) but somehow Corbyn "leading" Labour to worse oblivion and zero influence shouldn't be mentioned.
KevinD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> That's the odd thing. You lay into the LDs at every opportunity (despite their moderating influence) but somehow Corbyn "leading" Labour to worse oblivion and zero influence shouldn't be mentioned.

Really where did I say that? Oh thats right I didnt.
I am getting f*cking bored of saying this but one final time.
I am think he is flawed. However I think the idea of chasing a bunch of swing voters at the expense of those traditional party members (whether Labour/tory/republican/democratic etc) is undemocractic and dangerous in that we end up with a bunch of disillusioned people who start looking for alternatives. The number of people who feel disenfranchised is growing and that scares me.
So yes having a centre left leader for Labour is a good thing in my eyes. Despite the bullshit otherwise he really isnt far left. Anywhere else in Europe he would be considered central left. It is only because we have been diving after the USA that he can be portrayed as anything else.
I would prefer him to be replaced but there doesnt really seem much choice. Unfortunately labour has been hollowed out over the last few years and needs time to rebuild and get some people who dont see being an MP, of whatever flavour, as part of a career path as opposed to a goal in itself.
neilh - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
This concept of selfishness started in the early 70's and possibly earlier when people became aspirational not selfish. They ditched the collectivenesswhich was a hangover from the Second World War .

Unless you want a return to the blitz, then I am afraid it has long gone.

Shani - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> so the state should legislate against this? Ban different kinds of contracts etc... ? Increase minimum wage? Big brother controlling society, tell it how it should behave? Or perhaps those who can shop local should etc.. and people will the society that they deserve or create. I'm not professing to have the answer, only that we, the consumer have created the problem.

If you pay people minimum wage and employ them on zero hours contracts - such that they do not enjoy a 'liveable income', as a business you end up relying on the state to supplement the living expeneses of your labour force. This is effectively a handout to business - corporate welfare.

So no need to legislate. Just stop the corporate handouts. Let Adam Smith's invisible hand sort out low paid jobs. Better we pay the unemployed to be unemployed rather than subsidise business to pay the unemployed to take low paying jobs - not least because the unemployed are unlikely to siphon the money off to a tax haven, thus it can course through the economy at root and branch level stimulating wider economic activity.
GrahamD - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to neilh:

> This concept of selfishness started in the early 70's and possibly earlier when people became aspirational not selfish. They ditched the collectivenesswhich was a hangover from the Second World War .

You what ? selfishness started in the early 70's ?
neilh - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Way before then.
It's nothing new.
neilh - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

The working population is 38 million of which just under 1 million are on zero hours contracts. Let us have some perspective.
BnB - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Shani:

I'd be utterly disgusted with myself if my employees didn't earn a good wage. But I'm a private business owner with a highly skilled workforce. The shareholders of the types of company you're referring to mostly don't even know they have shares in them. They are pension savers and most of the contributors on this thread will be counted amongst them. And the pension fund managers who represent those millions of shareholders march to the demand for investment return, not ethical employment.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.