http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33884836
[i]Would Corbyn's 'QE for people' float or sink Britain?
Robert Peston[/i]
Why can he not win a general election?
Because Foot didn't and Kinnock couldn't (twice) even when up against the most hated (Thatch) and most ineffective (Major) PM's in recent years.
Leftie-ism is unpopular. That's why Blair and Cameron and Clegg and Burnham couldn't pick each other out of a line-up; they are all clones of a winning formula.
Aaargh - Peston!!! How BBC lost out to JP Morgan Asset Mgt (Flanders) and why we are losers because of it. He is so out of his depth, it's frightening.
Leftie-ism is unpopular.
Which explains why anti-austerity, anti-Trident, and anti-tuition fees, sunk the SNP and let the Tories romp home in Scotland ?
[url= http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/dulwich-park-picnic-kendall-mania-haynes-734 ]We done this yet?[/url] 😀
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/well-try-to-oust-jeremy-corbyn-on-day-one-if-members-pick-him-says-labour-mp-simon-danczuk-10451581.html
the really worrying thing is, that's actually how Labour works.
Here in Bristol, we had an independent mayor elected a couple of years ago. He said he wanted a cross-party cabinet, and invited councillors from all parties for it. Labour councillors were instructed by Central Office not to join, and did as they were told. It was a shocking (to me, anyway) example of party politics overriding what was best for the actual public. Eventually bad publicity won the day and they relented. But they made themselves look like proper ****s.
If that's still the mentality at Labour Central office I can imagine them trying to do the same thing again. And that really WOULD make the Labour party unelectable.
teamhurtmore - MemberHe is so out of his depth, it's frightening.
[i]Robert Peston
Career :
1983-84 Stockbroker, Williams de Broe 1984-86 Reporter, Investors' Chronicle 1986-89 City correspondent, the Independent 1989-90 Deputy City editor, Sunday Correspondent 1990-91 City editor, Independent on Sunday 1991-93 Banking editor, Financial Times, 1993-95 Head of investigations unit, FT. What The Papers Say investigative journalist of the year, 1994. 1995-2000 Political editor, FT 2000 Financial editor, FT 2000-02 editorial director, Quest 2002-05 City editor, Sunday Telegraph 2005 associate editor, Sunday Telegraph 2006 BBC business editor[/i]
ScottChegg - MemberBecause Foot didn't and Kinnock couldn't (twice) even when up against the most hated (Thatch) and most ineffective (Major) PM's in recent years.
Smith probably would have though (I'd say almost certainly; his detractors would say probably). And the fact that's so forgotten is, probably yet another reason to dislike the Blairites.
TBH we could do more with a Smith than a Corbyn right now. But you don't get many of those to the pound.
John Smith would have easily won; the path of the UK would have been very different.
Lefie-ism is unpopular.Which explains why anti-austerity, anti-Trident, and anti-tuition fees, sunk the SNP and let the Tories romp home in Scotland ?
Maybe you are muddling lefty-ism and nationalism?
And Peston's reports should always end by reminding everyone that when RBS took over ABN Amro, he said detractors of deal should be confident that Fred Goodwin knows what he is doing.
Maybe you are muddling lefty-ism and nationalism?
I don't think so.
Scots don't like Tories, not even Scottish Tories.
Not everyone who voted SNP is a nationalist, don't go down that road.
Why thank you Ernie - exactly, he is not an economist and it shows. Where is Flanders when you need her? The gap between the two is startling.
He should stick to business gossip and using his sources for scoops. Leave the economics to people who understand it.
He should stick to business gossip and using his sources for scoops. Leave the economics to people who understand it.
Given we have these clever people who understand economics, it's a wonder we ever have any problems!
ernie_lynch - Member
Maybe you are muddling lefty-ism and nationalism?
I don't think so.Scots don't like Tories, not even Scottish Tories.
Hmm, about 15% like the scottish tories, pretty solid with that base. I#m not quite sure yet how to quantify how many SNP tories there are! 😆 But there will be many!
No tories in Scotland is a myth.
Leave the economics to people who understand it.
like who? And why didn't any of them pipe up before the banks tanked our economy?
Well of course no Tories in Scotland is a myth, they have one MP - exactly the same as Labour and the LibDem.
I wouldn't call 15% a very solid base though, specially for a major party of government.
Right-wing parties don't do very well in Scotland, despite the fact we are told right-wing politics is a vote winner.
No i know, just saying that the tories will always have that 15% to build from as a minumum, and that there's a percentage of the SNP vote that will lean to the right. I doubt it'll be government forming percentage in the near future, but I wouldn't completely rule it out and scotland isn't bereft of right wingers..
Leave the economics to people who understand it.
A strongly worded letter to the Financial Times which employed him as financial editor ?
Although to be fair THM you regularly comment on economic matters despite not being able to answer a simply question such as why it is ok for foreign state owned companies to tender for UK rail franchises but not for UK state owned companies to do so. That one's got you really stumped.
Is there some unwritten law that says all STW politics threads end up talking about Scottish independance and/or Stephanie Flanders?
Dazh - loads did and they made shit loads of money as a result.
Thank you Ernie for another useful comment. Puts in the appropriate box - to be treated in the appropriate manner.
You mean ignored because you can't answer it ?
Yawn - no because been done many times and you are just doing what you do on here to get your kicks and it's simply boring now. So yes I am ignoring it - you didn't get it the first time and why would a UKIP sympathiser get it anyway?
No you didn't answer it. You did your usual waffle.
You are quite correct. Vsry well done.
i placed a bet on JC at 8/1 some weeks ago --how does that play in your financial world THM ?
rudebwoy - Member
i placed a bet on JC at 8/1 some weeks ago --how does that play in your financial world THM ?
THM is no fool. He'll have hedged his bets. 🙂
I see there's now a move to disenfranchise the new Labour members because of their Corbyn support.
Sounds like a brilliant tactic for a party that has lost popular support - as soon as a politician gets popular support, cut them off at the knees.
I really hope they do this to Corbyn, then the 2 remaining Labour faithful in Scotland will vote SNP next year. 🙂
What's he said that's so bloomin' radical, anyway?
i placed a bet on JC at 8/1 some weeks ago
A friend put £20 on him at 100/1 🙂
I reckon Tony Blair is taking backhanders from the Corbyn camp to make their man look more credible. Is there nothing Tony Blair won't do for money?
Yes, the time for a bet was when I started the thread. Betting is about balancing odds and probability. So rudeboy, not bad but not brilliant!
"[i]I have an e-mail from Yvette Cooper asking me to tell her why I signed up to vote. I told her there was an opportunity to get a Labour party that was compassionate and not Tory-lite, and this opportunity was not her.[/i]"
She must be getting a few blunt but constructive replies, mine was one of them. I doubt she cares what people think is wrong with things though.
[b]MARK STEEL BANNED FROM LABOUR VOTE[/b]
"[i]The comedian and writer Mark Steel has become the latest prominent left-winger to be barred from voting in the Labour leadership election.
Steel, who has [b]volunteered to knock on doors for the party in the past[/b], said he was “fuming” at the rejection, which [b]he was told was because he does not “support their values”[/b].
The comic, who is also an Independent columnist, questioned whether it was right for Tony Blair to be allowed to vote given he had invaded Iraq for a “completely bogus” reason."
"He said the rejection notice did not explain specifically why he had been barred from voting.
“It’s a standard thing that clearly goes out to everyone. It says there are two reasons [for rejection]. One is that you don’t support the ideals and values of the Labour party. Or you are a member of a rival organisation,” Steel said.
“I can’t think what that can be, unless it’s Crystal Palace Football Club or my local snooker club in Croydon. Maybe my snooker club is fielding candidates."
“I applied as a supporter about three weeks ago. Then I started getting all the emails that people get, from Yvette Cooper and people like that, thanking me. Then I just suddenly get this, and there’s nothing I can do about it.[/i]”
I see Blair has rolled out now and wants us to "[i]understand the danger we are in[/i]".
Maybe he thinks there are thousands of people mentioned in the Chilcot Report? Oh, he's talking about Corbyn, silly me...
"[i]In a desperate appeal to Labour members and supporters, the former prime minister urged them to set aside their opinions about his three terms in power and save the party from self-destruction by rejecting Corbyn’s politics.[/i]
“[i]It doesn’t matter whether you’re on the left, right or centre of the party, whether you used to support me or hate me,” he wrote. “But please understand the danger we are in[/i]"
Another irony gap....
BBC:
"Labour received more than 160,000 applications to vote in its leadership contest in the final 24 hours of registrations.... It takes the potential total electorate in the leadership contest to 610,753."
At the [2015] general election Labour had just over 200,000 full members.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33892407
The way Labour have organised this is probably proof they are not capable of running a government. 🙂
Or has it merely been a scam to get a heap of new members to contribute to their coffers?
Blair really has rendered irony redundant, hasn't he?
epicyclo - MemberThe way Labour have organised this is probably proof they are not capable of running a government
Not sure tbh. It's obviously got downsides but I think there's too much focus on that and not enough on the positives. If nothing else, they've made at least £200000 quid off it! But they've also engaged 70000 people with their leadership process who wouldn't previously, not to mention motivating many others who might not have bothered. It's certainly a step away from traditional westminster politics of busting your nut to attract a few percent of switchers and not worrying about all the people who're completely disengaged...
The key thing here is, there's 70000 "registered supporters", ie £3 voters. But there's 280000 full members and 92000 affiliates- ie union members (maybe some other ways to become affiliates?). So even if every single registered supporter is either a communist or a tory signing up to derail it, they make up 1/6th of the vote. And Corbyn's polling at 53%. (*)
So basically, all the complaints are a bag o shit. Whining from people who belatedly realise they're on the wrong side and are in denial about the reasons, enthusiastically picked up by the media for an assortment of reasons, many of them gobshitey.
(have to admit, considering all the noise about "entryism" I'd assumed the balance of power would be different... I must be getting less cynical 😉 )
(*It's not quite that simple, because AV. But even then, the original assumption that Corbyn would fail to pick up secondary preferences and lose in subsequent rounds has been pretty much discarded)
For the avoidance of doubt I'll be delighted if Corbyn wins. I was severly tempted to pay £3 in order to vote for him. FWIW I would have passed all vetting. The process is a shambles and I strongly suspect many who will vote for Corbyn are doing so in order fo damage the Labour Party
There's definitely going to be a bunch of those. And if the polling is right, they're going to end up feeling pretty silly... having paid money to a party they hate, and had to abandon whatever scant principles they might have had, in order to make a pretty feeble attempt at disrupting the democratic process, which turns out to make bugger-all difference.
Because if the polling comes true, it needs about 27000 people to have signed up dishonestly and voted for Corbyn. And in reality it'll be a few hundred, [i]maybe even[/i] a few thousand disappointed shiteheels, and my heart surely does bleed for them 😆
This is an amazingly unedifying thread.
😐
So basically, all the complaints are a bag o shit. Whining from people who belatedly realise they're on the wrong side and are in denial about the reasons
For a moment, I thought I was back in an Independece thread. Now where's Steph..... 😉
The process is a shambles
why? the process seems pretty well run, transparent and successful (so far).
The process is a shambles
God forbid we might have an outbreak of real democracy. Are you really saying that a process that has gained the party more members than ever before, has motivated more union members to affiliate than ever before, gained a huge number of supporters who want to have a part in the party's future, and which has energised and transformed the leadership debate and potentially transformed politics in the whole country, is a shambles? From where I'm sitting it looks like an unbridled success, but I guess that depends on whether you think normal people should be involved in politics or whether we just leave it all to our masters to decide what's best.
and I strongly suspect many who will vote for Corbyn are doing so in order fo damage the Labour Party
Have you considered the possibility that maybe it's just people who have had enough of being told what's best for them by a bunch of people who have no beliefs, principles, or experience of the real world? And I thought I was a cynic!
Jambalaya - does it ever get boring doing your crappy trolling or do you genuinely believe the utter nonsense you consistently come out with? You really are stunningly misinformed/wrong about virtually any given topic.
Yeah I'm being a bit rude but I'm genuinely baffled/frustrated every time you post. I struggle to believe that anyone could have such a blinkered worldview.
I have differences of opinion with all sorts of people but still respect their view - but your opinions simply have no credibility.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
dazh - Member
God forbid we might have an outbreak of real democracy. Are you really saying that a process that has gained the party more members than ever before, has motivated more union members to affiliate than ever before, gained a huge number of supporters who want to have a part in the party's future, and which has energised and transformed the leadership debate and potentially transformed politics in the whole country, is a shambles? From where I'm sitting it looks like an unbridled success, but I guess that depends on whether you think normal people should be involved in politics or whether we just leave it all to our masters to decide what's best.
I agree with all of that. The Blairites seem determined to massively **** it all up though.
why? the process seems pretty well run, transparent and successful (so far).
How can it be @kona if anybody with £3 can vote even if they are totally anti Labour ? On the BBC last night they said 250,000 people had registered in the last couple of weeks. IMO a big chunk of these are doing so to consign LBour to the wilderness via a Corbyn win
@dazh how can it be a victory for democracy if I can oay £3 to vote for someone I think is a total nut job ?
Corbyn voted against Labour governments 400 times in his carear as an MP, yet he didnt have the courage to stand as an Independent despite rarely agreeing with his own Party when in government
IMO a big chunk of these are doing so to consign LBour to the wilderness via a Corbyn win
That's an opinion. It's not evidence.
Edit. Repeat post.
@gofaster, drinking wine thats all a bit Champagne socialist isnt it ? Perhaps not surprising given he's part of the Islington elite ? 🙂
jambalaya - MemberHow can it be @kona if anybody with £3 can vote even if they are totally anti Labour ? On the BBC last night they said 250,000 people had registered in the last couple of weeks. IMO a big chunk of these are doing so to consign LBour to the wilderness via a Corbyn win
Aye, just ignore the full breakdown of numbers I posted yesterday, because it's inconvenient. There are 70000 £3 voters, total. The 250000 mentioned is all types of voters- members, affiliate members, and £3s. So your post amounts to saying "People who need to register in order to vote, are registering in order to vote."
People signing up to vote are overwhelmingly doing it by the traditional, uncontroversial methods. £3 voters amount to about 15% of the total registered.
I think this sums up most people's understanding of the candidates agendas in the leadership contest;
[img] 
[/img]
That's an opinion. It's not evidence.
In jambatrackworld, the two are often one and the same thing.
I never did get this "champagne socialist" thing. Why can't a person enjoy a glass of bubbly now and then and also be a socialist?
Presumably socialism is about bringing all the good stuff within reach of everybody? So...
(Edit: Prefer Prosecco meself, like.)
How can it be @kona if anybody with £3 can vote even if they are totally anti Labour ?
They can't.
Next!
why? the process seems pretty well run, transparent and successful (so far).
How can it be @kona if anybody with £3 can vote even if they are totally anti Labour?
I don't understand your point. in what way does that make the process badly run, non-transparent or unsuccessful? be specific.
@gofaster, drinking wine thats all a bit Champagne socialist isnt it ? Perhaps not surprising given he's part of the Islington elite ?
what is the Islington elite? why do you think Corbyn is part of it?
how can it be a victory for democracy if I can oay £3 to vote for someone I think is a total nut job ?
So people should only be allowed to vote if they vote for a candidate that others deem are acceptable? The shambles, if there is one, is that the labour MPs who nominated him and are now regretting it, are so out of touch and arrogant that they couldn't see that people might actually want to support him. And if they couldn't see it, they should be asking some questions of themselves as to whether they should be labour MPs.
what is the Islington elite? why do you think Corbyn is part of it?
The Islington elite are posh privileged people in the Labour Party, like Tony Blair. Corbyn is obviously part of it because he is an Islington Labour MP.
Life is so simple when you're a Tory spongebrain.
The Islington elite are posh privileged people in the Labour Party, like Tony Blair. Corbyn is obviously part of it because he is an Islington MP.
The elite is people like Owen Jones, oxbridge educated part of the 1% higher earners 😉
The elite is people like Owen Jones, oxbridge educated part of the 1% higher earners
big_n_daft - Member
The elite is people like Owen Jones, oxbridge educated part of the 1% higher earners
Wey hey, Owen Jones becomes part of The Establishment, the circle is squared. We can STFU and get in with doing really stuff like running businesses, looking after sick people, teaching kids, shooting nasty folk..... 😉
The elite is people like Owen Jones, oxbridge educated part of the 1% higher earners
So is the Islington elite are posh privileged people in the Labour Party, like Tony Blair and Owen Jones. Corbyn is obviously part of it because he is an Islington Labour MP.
"Man of the people".......I ask you. Those sandals and pens in his shirt pocket don't fool anyone.
I never did get this "champagne socialist" thing. Why can't a person enjoy a glass of bubbly now and then and also be a socialist?Presumably socialism is about bringing all the good stuff within reach of everybody? So...
It's odd because although it has its roots (i think) in mid-20th C Russia, where the party bosses swanned around in massive cars drinking champers while telling the proles to eat their gruel and be happy, it has now become a stick for the rightwing to beat the left with: the argument, clearly nonsensical, generally goes that if you don't live under a bridge, it's hypocritical to want to help people who do live under bridges.
The irony is that the term was used to insult those who claimed 'We're all in it together' as a justification for inflicting poverty on others, whilst enjoying huge wealth themselves. Which has a certain resonance in the UK in 2015, just not on the left...
@dazh how can it be a victory for democracy if I can oay £3 to vote for someone I think is a total nut job ?
Indeed victory for democracy is when you pay nothing to vote for a total nut job.
Well pay nothing up front anyway
Champagne socialist is more to do with the upper middle classes redistributing farmstock or machinery of the working class while not suffering the same fate themselves and continuing their previous standard of living. Its socialism in the communist sense. Marx would fall into this category as he used capitalist profits to fund his daughters piano lessons while 'moaning' about capitalism and profits.
[quote=dragon said] while 'moaning' about capitalism and profits.
Was that on the "Dog sh*tting in my back garden" thread ?
Marx would fall into this category as he used capitalist profits to fund his daughters piano lessons
WTF? 😯
I dream of a revolutionary world free of piano players.
Bleeding champagne socialists.
Well I've changed my mind now, Corbyn can kiss my arse - I'm voting for Liz Kendall. Thank **** for sensible debates on STW, I almost made a terrible mistake.
It's odd because although it has its roots (i think) in mid-20th C Russia, where the party bosses swanned around in massive cars drinking champers...
. it's a British term. it was an insult particularly used against Derek Hatton and his dodgy mates.
All we need now to further fuel this outbreak of democracy is one of the other war criminals to pipe up. Where is Jack Straw these days?
And with inevitable timing, guess who pops up of C4 News tonight? He didn't even have anything original to say, just 'I agree with Tony'. You can easily imagine these people on their death beds muttering 'we were right and everyone else was wrong!'.
grum - MemberJambalaya - does it ever get boring doing your crappy trolling or do you genuinely believe the utter nonsense you consistently come out with? You really are stunningly misinformed/wrong about virtually any given topic.
Yeah[b] I'm being a bit rude[/b]
No you're not
Jack Straw wants us to believe that :
[i]"One of the effects for certain of a vote for Jeremy Corbyn, if he were to become leader, is that the party that would most benefit from, this aside from the Conservatives, is the Lib Dems.
It would be like Lazarus, they would rise from the dead, if Jeremy Corbyn was to become leader, rejuvenate them when they actually down and out"[/i]
How does he know? Can we trust him? Does he have a crystal ball?
Well just like everyone else who is now predicting with complete certainty what a Corbyn victory will mean (note the use of the term [i]"the effects for certain"[/i]) it comes as a complete surprise to Jack Straw that Corbyn is hugely popular in the Labour Party and will quite possibly win the leadership election.
So the man who was utterly clueless about the feelings and views of his own party members wants you to trust that he knows the feelings and views of ordinary working people.
He hasn't apparently even worked that the LibDem vote didn't collapse because they were seen as too left-wing but because they were seen as indistinguishable from the Tories.
Personally, i really don't understand how you can disagree with what he's saying here.
Well unless you have a vested interest in the theft of public assets. In that case, **** you! 😆
They can't.
Yes they can @Ranso's - the Labour Party have no way and certainly not the rescources to vet the applicants and even then unless they can trace them to membership of a political party they can't tell what their political leanings are or why they are registering to vote.
The Liberal Democrats must be absolutely loving this, from a position of facing total obscurity they are right back in the game with the centre / centre left ground to play for as the Labour Party leap leftwards off a cliff into oblivion. EDiT: @ernie I see Jack Straw has beaten me to "publication" on this one
Once again, go for it Corbyn I hope you win by a landslide in the first round.
@grum please point to the post where you think I'm trolling, I'd be most amused to see which one and to ask why you think it's a troll.
FWIW I think the whole "Islington elite" / "Champagne socialist" categorisation is nonsense
Go Jeremy go.
Yvette has waded in to say that Corbyn has no economic credibility
This is the woman married to Ed Balls
Satire is now officially dead
Stil no actual policies from Yvette though.
Nu Labour all over
jambalaya - Member
Yes they can @Ranso's - the Labour Party have no way and certainly not the rescources to vet the applicants and even then unless they can trace them to membership of a political party they can't tell what their political leanings are or why they are registering to vote.
They do have a pretty good records of voting intentions and party affiliation. Those who are going to pay to vote for Corbyn are going to be pretty strong pre-existing intentions.
The reality is that the 3 other candiates know they can't win so are now trying to bring the legitimacy of the vote, not only this the Tories will focus on the legitimacy of Corbyn as that is the easiest way for them to attack him from the start.
They do have a pretty good records of voting intentions and party affiliation.
With the best will in the world they can't be that good as they thought they were going to win the last election. That said, I agree the infiltration risk is being overplayed and "Tories for Corbyn", which is a rather juvenile idea, will have no measurable effect.