Forum menu
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.