Was he drunk when he wrote it?
So we now have:
(1) a market-based healthcare system in the UK (Lord hiccup Owen)
Or
(2) We have no NHS, since the Tories have run it into the ground (Jezza)
Odd that neither seem to be true. Wouldn't surprise me if the good lord carried on with some guff about Scotland being a model for the NHS without any private sector involvement. Double ports all round....
Straight, principled, unspun....you didn't hear it here first
Ernie... comrade ..... I've just given you specific examples of mad leftie nonsense.
I thought when Corbyn was elected as the leader of the opposition, he'd realise how different that position was to the one he'd held previously... mad leftie backbencher, and temper his more electorally unpalatable ideas accordingly.
No chance. He's too politically naive/clueless for that
Unfortunately a serious amount of this countries population share my opinion (rightly or wrongly) on what constitutes 'mad lefty nonsense'. Far too many for Corbyn ever to be electable.
Far from toning it down, he's ratcheted it up. How do you think that's playing out in marginal seats? Going well? Winning a lot of people over to the idea of radical socialism?
recruit every stuck-in-the-80's lefty nut job and Militant head case in the country
300,000 new members. I just don't believe that there are/were that many lefty nut-jobs in this country. If there are then the loony left are doing much better than I ever thought they were. Unless the socialist workers have been running a secret programme of sleeper cells in every town and village 🙂
Is it not just possible that these new members, instead of being lefty nut-jobs, are people who have been inspired by the policies and the approach of a man who is the opposite of pretty much every political leader presented to them for the past 30 years? It's a crazy thought, but considering what's going on elsewhere in Europe and the US, I'm not sure this anti-establishment movement can be so easily dismissed.
@ninfan, blast from the past ? that seems like yesterday ! 30 mins well spent, you really could just replace Militant with Momentum and wind the clock forward 30 years. Now where is my Delorean
Rebranding
Yep, that's very expensive I'll grant you. So expensive you never see private companies doing it with tho goal of increasing profits. Nope, not ever.
Well, re-nationalising the railways needn't cost a penny as the plan AIUI is to simply not renew franchises as they come to an end and thus the routes come back into public ownership.
The cuckoos obviously rely on people believing this stuff. Remarkable...
@daz imo its a mix of youngster voters who have no memories of the 70's and 80's and entryists from other parties/organisations (most from the left but some from the right who are being deliberately disruptive)
I've just given you specific examples of mad leftie nonsense.
Yeah so don't come out with this bollocks : [i]"my problem with Corbyn isnt policy"[/i]. Try to have some integrity ffs.
No recession for 25+ years.
Wasn't that due to large scale mineral exploitation rather than fiscal skill?
Binners - I'd like to agree with you but your debating tone makes that really difficult! However glad zokes went to the effort of getting some actual good points from you 🙂
Ernie, JY and Zokes.... did you read the [url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/labour-complains-tories-govern ]Rafeal Behr[/url] article in today's Guardian?
I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. To me it perfectly summarises the difference in perception from the committed left, and the general voter.
What do you think?
Railways. Corbyn thinks investment is too low, working conditions too onerous, wages too low and fares too high. So he would spend more to fix the first three whilst reducing prices. Net net a nationalised railway would cost the taxpayer much more money. No he wouldn't pay for the franchise (but there is an implicit loss as the govt would not receive a franchsie fee) and then he'd spend spend spend.
@jamby a mix of younger people and entryists. What % split do you reckon?
ernie_lynch - Member[b]"For the first time in 14 years we have the leader of the Labour Party unequivocally committing the party to reversing the legislation which has created in England a broken down, market-based healthcare system"[/b]
- August 24th 2016, Lord David Owen - founding member of the right-wing breakaway party the SDP.
[url= http://www.lorddavidowen.co.uk/for-the-first-time-in-14-years-we-have-the-leader-of-the-labour-party-unequivocally-committing-the-party-to-reversing-the-legislation-which-has-created-in-england-a-broken-down-market-based-healthc/ ]Lord Owen official website[/url]
Lord Owen......not noted for being a hard-left militant trot.
teamhurtmore - MemberWas he drunk when he wrote it?
🙄
Aus's very own Steve Keen
For the last 25 years, Australian politicians of both Liberal and Labor hue have been able to brag that, under their stewardship, Australia has avoided a recession. [b]Those bragging rights are about to come to an end. [/b]During the life of the next Parliament — and probably by 2017 — Australia will fall into a prolonged recession.
and he's not exactly a neo-liberal
the emoji was his face- drunk more than I thought? odd that a few months ago he still thought we had a NHS. He was claiming that leaving the EU would destroy it. Must be a strong tipple....
Do you have a poster of him too Ernie?
The cuckoos obviously rely on people believing this stuff. Remarkable
Go on then, why would it cost the exchequer any more that it would a private company looking to make a profit?
And molly/thm , read the rest of what I said about Oz. The wealth came from minerals, yet despite the squandering of much of that by Howard, there was enough for a stimulus package that allowed Oz to avoid recession and the worst of the GFC. It's not like the uk didn't have a huge natural resource off the north east coast, is it.
Zokes, go and have a read of your (now) very own Steve Keen before you ouse any more self-confidence about the outlook for the Aussie economy. Given that the coming story has been played out in many countries before, it smacks of remarkable folly to not prevent the forthcoming problems
@daz imo its a mix of youngster voters who have no memories of the 70's and 80's
Younger people are definitely a large proportion of the new members. Does that not ring some alarm bells? See my earlier comments about demographics.
entryists from other parties/organisations
Oh please, you really think that's more than a tiny minority? I'll accept that there may have been lots of £3ers (like myself) who had no previous membership or allegiance to the party, but lots of these then went on to spend £50 on full membership, not to mention the 120,000 since Corbyn was elected leader. The entryist argument just can't explain the numbers given the previous number of members of extreme-left organistations where they're supposed to have come from.
teamhurtmore - MemberDo you have a poster of him too Ernie?
What a truly moronic comment.
did you read the Rafeal Behr article in today's Guardian?
I did. Pretty much a statement of the obvious I thought. Put in the context of the past thousand years where hierarchical power structures and the self-interest of those at the top have been pretty much ever-present, it's inevitable that any political party, organisation or movement fighting against that is going to be at a disadvantage. The past 100 or so years has seen brief breaks from that in the form of leftwing movements inspired by Marx et al, but there's still a huge way to go before the scales tip in the other direction. You could easily argue that winning power, whilst beneficial obviously, is not essential in keeping the pressure moving in a leftwards direction.
That's a no I take it. Not as photogenic as the iron lady and he did cast you boys into the wilderness for some time. Amazed that you quote him really, I would have thought he had been eradicated from the records already. Perhaps someone could renationalise the Ministry of Truth?
@THM: I'm not denying Australia's fiscal luck is likely to finally run out. I'm just giving you some of the reasons as to why we were one of the few nations to avoid the GFC.
Though The Oz as a source is about as reliable as The Fail in the UK. Read with a considerable pinch of salt.
I was aware of that but would avoid drawing parallels between the natural resource wealth of our two home nations!.
No idea on the papers tbh but easier than linking to Keen's website. Joking apart he is an interesting guy not least for his efforts to debunk most of he Economics that is still taught. I would have thought that he would be right u your street tbh.
@ binners
It just mirrors the debate on here
There is the seductive distinction between those who get it and those who don’t: dumb herd and wise shepherds.
I get the argument and i do accept corbyn is not the solution then again neither is Owen nor the PLP
No one is covering themself in glory here its a wrestle in a pit of shit as Tories cheer on whilst we debate who is throwing the most shit.
It's all relative. The Bearded Mesiah obviously believes the labour leadership is the endgame. The desired result. No further ambition beyond that. As that would involve compromise and other grown up stuff. Forming the next government clearly isn't really a serious consideration. That would involve compromise and preaching to the unconverted. And we don't do that type of thing.
Great for him. Not so great for everyone who is going to suffer at the hands of the next ten years of unopposed Tory government .
Tragic really. Not for Jeremy obviously. But for those who are thinking that eternal Tory rule is probably going to be a bit shit .
Not to worry though. Jeremy is the leader of the increasingly irrelevent Labour Party! Hurray! That's what we all wanted, right?
Probably all playing out an awful lot better in Islington than Middleton, but hey ho....
Binners i cannot read your posts anymore the bearded messiah and all that guff just makes me despair
Turn it down a few levels will you as I am sure their is something insightful amongst all the name calling memes
What's your alternative binners? Owen Smith? I saw one of his rallies in London Fields.
Amazing sunny day - must have been at least 30 people there to see him speak.
Which I guess explains why Owen Smith said a couple of week ago :
[i][b]"I'd really like to go to some of those Momentum rallies with Jeremy. I've asked him to let me attend and speak to the great masses he's drawing from the Momentum movement. I think that would be really good."[/i][/b]
What's your alternative binners? Owen Smith?
There is no choice, the alternative is Owen Smith - it's him or Corbyn, it is as simple as that.
The plotters spent weeks deciding who they were going to get behind and Owen Smith easily won.
If you want Corbyn replaced then it has to be Owen Smith, a man who claims to be just as radical and left-wing as Corbyn but with greater voter appeal - I have no idea why.
I was aware of that but would avoid drawing parallels between the natural resource wealth of our two home nations!
Plenty draw parallels between how Australia handled the mining boom and how Norway has handled its oil reserves. I'm not so sure why the UK would be much different to Norway in terms of the resources it once had, just very different in how it managed them financially.
There is no choice, the alternative is Owen Smith - it's him or Corbyn, it is as simple as that.
As bad as that, more like.
If you want Corbyn replaced then it has to be Owen Smith, a man who claims to be just as radical and left-wing as Corbyn but with greater voter appeal - I have no idea why.
You are not alone. Incredible that a party like Labour cannot find a decent leader. Still some of the recent Tory choices were quite breathtaking too. But at least they dismissed them pretty quickly and got on with parking the bus in the middle ground where most of the votes live. Odd that, what are they thinking?
Most of the voters dont live in the middle ground -if they did the LIB dems would be getting majorities now wouldn't they and not be a a {distant] third party. Did you mean the voters who currently decide elections live there? ie "floating voters"
I'm not so sure why the UK would be much different to Norway in terms of the resources it once had
Well a population of 5.2M vs 65M makes rather a big difference and they have more oil. Despite their wealth Norway's unemployment rate is now 4.1% vs 5.4% of the UK. The UK has much more mixed economy, Norway is heavily reliant on oil with all the pros and cons that brings.
JY - due to our electoral system the government is ultimately decided by a small number of swing voters in a small number of key marginal seats. These people tend to be very middle of the road. Remember Mondeo Man and his like? The one who delivered 3 consecutive victories for the Labour party under..... *spits*... him?
This is who anyone who aspires to be PM has to win over. Cameron understood this. When he described himself as the Heir to Blair, this is what he meant. Reining in the wilder, more right wing, hang 'em and flog 'em elements of the party, who scare centrist voters off
You can rail against it all you like (though not enough to advocate PR, I note), but it is what it is. So essentially ignoring these people in favour of noisier fellow travelers, who wave placards, and nod approvingly at your words is an ultimately futile exercise.
The PLP knows this. Hence the mutiny (or 'coup' for the conspiracy theorists)
PR referendum aswell! Dave bloody loved them!
Reining in the wilder more right wing elements of the party who scare centrist voters
That worked well, didn't it? *cough* BREXIT *cough*
The PLP knows this. Hence the mutiny
Well, appealing to the middle ground did Brown and Millibean a lot of good, didn't it? Worked well for Kinnock a few years ago as well, I recall...
Well, appealing to the middle ground did Brown and Millibean a lot of good, didn't it?
Someone else did it better. The fact that both results were so close illustrates the point. Recent elections, and ones to come will be won on a very narrow centre. Certainly not in the wider areas, left or right. Due to the whole 'key marginals' thing. My own (key marginal) constituency went Tory by 120 votes.
Given Dave won a majority of 12, and no majority before (even against Brown), what would your target be for a labour paty under Corbyn? What do you think would be a realistic majority that he is capable of achieving?
Thats a question for all the Corbynites. At the general election, under his 'leadership' what would you actually predict as an election result? A majority? And of how much?
Go on then, why would it cost the exchequer any more that it would a private company looking to make a profit?
@zokes read my post. Corbyn wants lower fares, more investment, better terms and conditions for workers (even a return to govt guaranteed defined benefit penions?). All of this will cost a lot of money (£100's millions to £ billions), far more than the £50m profit Virgin Trains makes.
Branson IMO does not run Virgin Trains for profit (he's worth 2.5bn so cares not about 25-50m which may or may not come from a very risky business. It's also a JV with Stagecoach). What Virgin trains does is provide him with a giant advertising billboard and particularly as an airline operator some "green credentials". Remember when he bid for the National Lottery it was as a non-profit organisation. Its about profile and brand exposure. He makes his money elsewhere.
Well, appealing to the middle ground did Brown and Millibean a lot of good, didn't it?
Brown lost due to his responce to the financial crises, ie not reigning in spending and seeing the deficit explode and the way he handled the bailouts. Plus the "bigot" remark ignoring Labour voters real concerns about the impact of immigration. He also had no charisma.
Milliband lost as he looked desperately weak in fromt of Sturgeon and Labour had not regained any financial credibility in its 5 years in opposition. He was not particularly middle ground either.
That Tombstone will be needed for Corbyn and Labour so I hope Milliband kept ti
Thats a question for all the Corbynites. At the general election, under his 'leadership' what would you actually predict as an election result? A majority? And of how much?
I think you're probably right in that they don't really care. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. All I hear from anti-Corbyn people is stuff like you've written above, about majorities, swing voters, perpetual tory rule etc. Nothing about actually building a fairer and more equal society. It's all just about winning, and it's taken as read that a labour govt in power will by default fight for the fairer and more equal society that labour members and voters want. Yet the evidence shows that labour govts rarely do that. In many respects I think those on the left are actually far less tribal than those in the centre. It's not just about winning for them, it's about changing things, and that's the real schism in the labour party, not this Corbyn/PLP/Blairite stuff.
Zokes, we did share of votes 20-30 pages ago. It's not rocket science
http://www.ukpolitical.info/ConvLab.htm
The second graph. Pretty conclusive.
But leave aside sectarian Scotland and the collapse of the LDs, what were you left with as reasons for Labour failing to deliver what they expected in the last election? Choice of leader and perception of economic competence, or should we say incompetence. The public believed the "Labour can't be trusted on the economy" tag line
How does this current farce address either of those problems?
How does this current farce address either of those problems?
It makes Milliband look like an exceptionally gifted candidate in comparison
...and May
The law of unintented (obvious in this case) consequences!
Thats a question for all the Corbynites. At the general election, under his 'leadership' what would you actually predict as an election result? A majority? And of how much?I think you're probably right in that they don't really care. That's not necessarily a bad thing though.
A 'democracy' where one party is handed permanent control by an 'opposition' that absolves itself of the duty to oppose politically isn't necessarily a bad thing?
Obviously you lot on the left are far shrewder and cannier than me, so could you just talk me through the concept of this, because to be honest I'm struggling a bit with it....
A 'democracy' where one party is handed permanent control by an 'opposition' that absolves itself of the duty to oppose politically isn't necessarily a bad thing?
My point was that, and I admit it's unlikely given those at the forefront of it, this movement offers the opportunity to shift the goalposts in a way that has not been possible since the post-war years. It may take a long time, perhaps several election cycles, but if the end result is a more democratic system, where the interests of normal people are represented rather than just the rich and powerful, then it's worth a go.
Obviously you lot on the left are far shrewder and cannier than me
It's pretty simple. It's basically a fight between pragmatism and ideology. The pragmatists had their shot, and on the whole they squandered the opportunity. You can argue why that happened, but the end result was the continuing neo-liberal orthodoxy. Many people, and not just on the left, now realise that neo-liberalism offers them nothing, and they want real changes, not frilling round the edges trying to blunt it's sharpest weapons.