[i]their return on capital was poor. [/i]
Although the percentage return was higher than the interest being paid on the capital debt that was supposedly paid off with the results of selling it.
Which is bloody stupid.
When nationalised post office telephones made massive profits.
Which weren't subsequently invested in any new product beyond the basic range available. No competition.
Perhaps they were confused and thought they were producing electricity meters.
So now we're arguing over the relative size of post office telephones profits. The reason we are discussing the GPO/BT is because it was given as an example of a failed nationalised company which was a burden on the taxpayer.
It clearly isn't a very good example of that. But then the poster has already admitted that he wasn't looking for "good examples". So it's probably worth leaving it at that 🙂
So now we're arguing over the relative size of post office telephones profits.
Nope. I'm arguing about the dumb idea that nationalised industries and a centrally "planned" economy will ever produce anything other than stagnation and disaster.
And for you Woppit :
[img] 
[/img]
A 1950s telephone from a non-nationalised telephone company. Looks identical to a nationalised one from the same era, why do you think that is?
I'm arguing about the dumb idea that nationalised industries and a centrally "planned" economy will ever produce anything other than stagnation and disaster.
Has anyone told the present government? They are going to let state owned companies build a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point! It can only possibly end up as a disaster, right?
And how long is it since de-nationalisation? During which time developments resulting in improvement and choice, have taken place?
Or are you suggesting that all this would have happened without privatisation? In which case, if it all happens anyway under a nationalised industry, where does the case for a better railway system than the one we now have, being an advantage of nationalisation, stand?
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying that nationalisation is an irrelevance with regards to the points you are making.
EDIT : With regards to the railways I think the case has been made - most people, including Tory voters, want them brought back into public ownership. Even Tony Blair was forced to concede that and he made a commitment to bring them back into public ownership. Obviously it turns out that he lied and he broke his commitment, but hey, that's Tony Blair for you.
dunno, have you considered the choices in 5 years time, Corbyn, Osborne or Boris!
I am working on the assumption that anyone I feel vaguely like voting forcwouldnt get elected. He wont win an election.
Good to see our very own UKIP rep expressing concern about nasty foreigners. Keep 'em out,
Forget all the lessons of international trade and comparative advantage. Keep Johnny Foreigner at bay. Nigel may be quiet but his legacy endures....
I've just read Andy Burnham's profile in todays Guardian and from this I've gleamed
a) He likes his footy
b) He likes watching The Great British Bake Off with his family
c) He actually lives in his constituency and doesn't like Westminster
As for policies? Beliefs? Ideology?
As with Liz, and Yvette..... who knows?
I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying that nationalisation is an irrelevance with regards to the points you are making.
Not at all. There is no evidence to suggest that nationalised industry leads to any of the improvements of the type that I have outlined, in any of the countries that have tried it. Quite the contrary.
C'mon Binns, there's plenty
Andy's VisionMy vision for Labour is simple: we must be the Party that helps everyone get on in life. (No s**t Sherlock)
People at all levels of society share the same hopes: a secure job; a decent home; a good standard of living; prospects for their kids; and proper care for their parents.
But, in our insecure, modern world, for far too many people, these dreams are dying.
It will be the mission of the Labour Party I lead to revive them - and turn the light of hope back on.(Amen)
Labour wins when we speak convincingly and passionately to the aspirations of everyone.
But the truth is we have lost our emotional connection with millions, not just in Scotland but in Wales and England too.
I will take Labour out of the 'Westminster bubble' and reach out to voters everywhere.
I will be a leader people can relate to, whose voice will carry into all the nations and regions of our country.
And I will lead a Party that helps every person, every family and every business - whoever they are, wherever they come from - get on in life. (hmmm....)
Andy's Signature
What more do you need?
Hmmmmm... all stirring, emotive stuff, but slightly light on the detail. its like he's writing a letter to Santa
Essentially its like a collection of those motivational posters so beloved of 'Merican corporate offices, with a picture of a sunset or a lofty mountain peak. Except that the posters you see in 'Merican corporate offices, with a picture of a sunset or a lofty mountain peak, have a bit more substance than the collective outpourings of Liz, Yvette and Andy
No "commanding heights" there, then.
[img] 
?7[/img]
Well it amused me...
Don't forget his worst crime, has a 3 foot long steerer on his bike too.
Labour wins when we speak convincingly and passionately to the aspirations of everyone.
The success of Corbyn can be summed up in this one puke-inducing sentence. Apart from the fact it doesn't mean anything, it contradicts itself as it certainly isn't passionate or convincing. I'm not sure what worse, this or Ed Miliband's 'We need to define a new narrative where capitalism works for normal people' bollox.
For balance, I'm beginning to tire of Corbyn's repeated use of the word 'conversation'. If he's not careful he's going to end up talking to a lot of people and doing nothing.
the panto continues on the wonderful medium of twitter
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/631008862875873280?lang=en-gb
how dignified!!
He's behind you.
Given the expertise demonstrated above, I have suggested an approach to our resident UKIP supporter - no future role for Johnny F!
The breakthroughs that you mention were exploited by private companies in pursuit of profit, enabling the explosion of choice that we experience today.
I note you are shifting your argument from whether public/private entities are better are inventing new technology to who's better at exploiting those technologies. perhaps this is because you know the old state telecoms companies were not too bad at developing new technology.
...yet over 2 broadsheet pages completely fail to advocate a single solitary belief, principle or policy of their own, that might provoke anyone into voting for them.
And for that reason he gets my vote.
I've just read Andy Burnham's profile in todays Guardian and from this I've gleameda) He likes his footy
b) He likes watching The Great British Bake Off with his family
c) He actually lives in his constituency [b]but reportedly rents out for profit the flat he owns in London whilst himself living in another flat 1/2 mile away and expensing that to us[/b] and doesn't readily admit to lik[s]e[/s]ing the spoils of Westminster
[b]d) he wants us all to believe he never saw himself as a politcian even though his own wife says he's always talked about it[/b]
[b]e) he would like us to remember he is against privitisation of the NHS and is pro-patient even though as health secretary he presided over PFI deals that saddled the NHS with £billions of debt and spent years refusing to meet the families of patients who died at Mid Staffs or accept there was a problem with NHS care that warranted further action
[/b]
I've fixed that for you
Hey Ernie
Here's a[url= http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/the-performance-of-privatisation-vol-ii-privatisation-and-its-effect-on-the-exchequer/ ] nice little article [/url]detailing the contributions to the treasury before and after privitisation of BT and several other ex public companies. If BT were contributing "massive amounts" before privatisation they were contributing up to 3 to 4 times that amount annually post privatisation. And that's without the funds to the treasury from the sale itself.
Two quotes from the above link -
"British Telecom emerges from NERA’s economic analysis as a major contributor to exchequer revenues. Not only has the Government received over £13 billion in sales proceeds, but the exchequer has also ‘continued to receive over £1 billion a year after privatisation in the form of tax, dividends, interest and debt repayments’. As NERA observes: ‘Whereas in the four years before privatisation BT contributed up to £625 million a year to public sector funds, since privatisation it has generally contributed between £1 billion and £2.4 billion a year in addition to privatisation proceeds’.
And
NERA suggests that this is surprising. However, there is a straightforward explanation for this trend. Since privatisation, BT has been able to attract outside capital as well as self-finance the huge sums required to invest in the latest telecom technology. In addition, the company is now far more efficient than it was under state ownership and it has been able to diversify into a number of different business activities, both here and overseas. In turn, the taxpayer has benefited from this improved efficiency and pre-tax profitability.
I think I'll stop there.
Sounds to me Gowrie that like Woppit you haven't quite got your head round the idea that technology has moved on in the last 30 years.
30 years ago people weren't carrying phones in their pockets. That had nothing to do with "nationalisation", they weren't walking around with phones in their pockets in the US either where the market was privately owned. Telecommunications is a growth industry.
And I wouldn't get too obsessed with profits, sometimes governments choose not to secure the maximum profit for a state owned monopoly because unlike a private company the wider well-being of the customers/voters/people is considered.
For example the recent huge profits by the nationalised East Coast Line could have been reduced if the government had decided that lower fares would have been more beneficial to the traveling public. Private or foreign state owned companies have no need to worry about such things - only how to maximise their profits.
BTW I have no idea why you think anyone should be particularly impressed with the views of a free-market policy think tank with close links to the Tory Party.
Anyway, back to the leadership contest :
[i][b] "We face a Tory Party waging an ideological crusade against the state and our public services. We face an emboldened government which has used our electoral defeat to mount an undemocratic assault on the trade union movement
The scale of the challenge we face demands boldness and radicalism. A timid offer to the British people isn’t the alternative.
We need to put an end to the inequalities that set in at birth. The Tories have cut inheritance tax to promote inherited wealth — I’ve said that we would spend that money instead on tackling inherited disadvantage through a revolution in early years care.
We must eliminate low pay — because poverty wages are an outrage in a modern, wealthy nation. So we must drive up wages by giving greater powers to the Low Pay Commission and build a real living wage society. And we must give our public service workers the decent pay rise they need and deserve at a time when so much is being asked of them.". [/i][/b]
All good stuff, the sort of stuff that you might expect Jeremy Corbyn to write in his weekly column in the Morning Star. Only it isn't Jeremy Corbyn's Morning Star column, it's from an article by Tony Blair's most favoured candidate, Liz Kendall, which she wrote for the Morning Star in a desperate attempt to appeal to the left.
Liz Kendall attempting to portray herself as radical and left-wing in the Morning Star really is a measure of how effective Corbyn's candidature has been.
Wow quite the chameleon move by Liz... Also wouldn't be surprised if that was written by someone else....
Also wouldn't be surprised if that was written by someone else....
You don't say ! 😉
Here you go squirrel - better alternatives. Simple enough?
Not really.
You don't seem to actually be saying what these "better alternatives" are or why they are better. In fact you haven't actually said anything at all beyond private good, national bad.
And you complain about politicians with their empty soundbites and spin...
The scale of the challenge we face demands boldness and radicalism. A timid offer to the British people isn’t the alternative.
Yet thats exactly what we're getting. Nice of Liz to take the trouble to highlight the main problem with her own non-manifesto
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015/aug/10/liz-kendall-andy-burnham-labour-leadership-video-worst ]Nice piece on the comparative merits of Andy and Liz's Youtube videos[/url]
Sounds to me Gowrie that like Woppit you haven't quite got your head round the idea that technology has moved on in the last 30 years.
Discussing anything with you is like trying to communicate by shouting down a dark tunnel full of fog.
The fact that technology has moved on in 30 years was exactly my point, enabled and exploited by private investment. I thought I'd made this clear.
It was you, with your slightly amusing poster from Bell Corp. in the fifties, who seemed to be saying that there was no difference between British Nationalisation and American Capitalism in producing technology. All focused on a small slice of history - the 1950's.
I honestly don't know why you claim one thing, and then the other, and expect to be taken seriously.
Woppit, don't stress it's the summer season - not traditionally panto time, but all the more relaxing and enjoyable for it.
Of course the massive development of telecommunications and the rapid acceleration of sector liberalisation were pure coincidences!
As an aside, the planning of work is step 14 in the road to serfdom!!! This comes after step 3 - the planners promise utopia - and step 4 - but they can't agree on what that is - each has his/her own pet plan.
Where are the libertarians when you need them 😉 fail to learn from (ancient) history and .......
Well, as it's summer, here is some beach reading for you. Always a good opportunity to get a broader perspective and maybe even show up next term with something resembling a clue.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17987621-the-entrepreneurial-state
The fact that technology has moved on in 30 years was exactly my point, enabled and exploited by private investment. I thought I'd made this clear.
Yes you have made it clear that you think technological advances are all down to privatisation. This is of course nonsense.
It was you, with your slightly amusing poster from Bell Corp. in the fifties, who seemed to be saying that there was no difference between British Nationalisation and American Capitalism in producing technology. All focused on a small slice of history - the 1950's.
Nothing to do with "a small slice of history". Did you want me to show all the adverts since telephones first became available? 😆
You need to get over your privatisation fetish Woppit. Although I suspect that it's all a little hypocritical, for example I doubt very much that you shun nationalised health care in favour of private health care because private health care is more technologically advanced.
Meanwhile the unpopular with the Red Tories Corbyn has not only filled a venue in Glasgow, but they have had to get a larger one.
Are any of the other candidates actually getting people getting off their bums to come and see them, or are they just using the traditional rent-a-crowd in closely cropped photos?
Are any of the other candidates actually getting people getting off their bums to come and see them
Yes, Tony Blair's preferred choice, Liz Kendall, spoke to a "packed public meeting" a couple of weeks ago about an awful smell. Apparently "over 60 people turned up".
[url= http://www.lizkendall.org/packed-public-meeting-on-biffa-stench/ ]Packed public meeting on Biffa stench[/url]
EDIT : Sorry my mistake, that was a year ago. No it doesn't seem that Liz Kendall has been very busy addressing public meetings recently.
Nothing to do with "a small slice of history"
I posted about the nationalised GPO phone service in the fifties.
You posted about the American private company Bell in the fifties.
This is a small slice of history.
You are either deliberately, or unconciously, obtuse.
I'm in a generous mood, so let's suppose it's the latter.
Poor attempt at a
[img] 
[/img]
with the NHS thing.
Ernie, wasn't it Labour who turned the GPO into a public corporation and split telecoms from postal services?
Surely without those steps, privatisation would never have happened?
Any book that gets such mixed reviews must be worth a read and if nothing else getting away from the extreme public sector v private sector debate. We have a mixed economy with both forms of resource allocation - not that you would get that from most of the crap that is talked about the issue.
But still struggling my way through Owen Jones teenage diatribe agains the establishment first! Unsurprising where his sympathies lie and who he is advising,,,,tiresome book but feel I need to finish it. Who can I blame next and call the establishment!!!! 1/10 so far, but 9 for amusement!
No it was the Tories who split telecoms from postal services in preparation for privatisation.
Do you want to talk about Corbyn now ?
Are any of the other candidates actually getting people getting off their bums to come and see them
In true Westminster style, Liz and Andy have dispensed with actually meeting people, fraught as that is with... well... people, and released Youtube videos of them 'being normal' instead. As we all know though, the more an MP tries to come across as 'normal' the more weird they appear to be. They probably did it because some highly paid image consultant told them thats the way to connect with the younger voters. You know... the ones that Jeremy seems to be picking up in the totally groundbreaking, and revolutionary method of going out and actually talking to them.
And unlike Jeremy, who's actually the MP for the area, Yvette doesn't seem to have left Islington
Oh, and on behalf of everyone, can I just say WILL YOU LOT STOP BANGING ON ABOUT THE ****ING GPO!!!!
Still not had my vetting phone call yet after signing up yesterday. I received a nice email telling me they'll let me know if I've been confirmed as a supporter once my application has been processed. Maybe they're a bit busier than normal in the last minute rush!
Meanwhile, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/11/labour-leadership-campaign-teams-reassure-them-integrity-ballot ]I see some of Kendall's supporters are casting doubt already on the validity of the election[/url]. 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?
No it was the Tories who split telecoms from postal services in preparation for privatisation.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Ernie
[i]Post Office Telecommunications was set up as a separate department of the UK Post Office, in October 1969[/i]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Telecommunications
Harold Wilson, well known Tory PM...
Binners - why not, after all, Comrade Jeremy (and Ernie) wants to Nationalise everything!
Comrade Jeremy (and Ernie) wants to Nationalise everything!
FFS! No, he does not. The thing is the more you lot misrepresent (or lie, to put it in plain terms) and crow about loony lefties, communists and the 1970s, the more the people who actually listen to him and read what he has to say can see that it's a load of rubbish and this bolsters his support. You just don't get it do you?
[i]Still not had my vetting phone call yet after signing up yesterday. [/i]
takes a while Dazh, I think it was about a week before they called me back
It's been weeks and I've had no call. 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.
Far too many rhetorical questions on this thread.
FFS! No, he does not. The thing is the more you lot misrepresent (or lie, to put it in plain terms) and crow about loony lefties, communists and the 1970s, the more the people who actually listen to him and read what he has to say can see that it's a load of rubbish and this bolsters his support. You just don't get it do you?
High5 Daz
[img] 
?w=2000&h=2000&a=7[/img]
As an aside, I see the BBC are riling against Corbyn, or at least they seem to be. Which seems very unusual since they would probably benefit from his leadership. The BBC swinging to the right in recent years has been pretty unsettling.
ninfan - Member"No it was the Tories who split telecoms from postal services in preparation for privatisation".
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Ernie
Post Office Telecommunications was set up as a separate department of the UK Post Office, in October 1969
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Telecommunications
Harold Wilson, well known Tory PM...
Oh my god, your ridiculous pettiness knows no bounds.
Post Office Telecommunications was set up as a separate department of the UK Post Office means it was "a separate department of the UK Post Office".
Since you are keen to quote Wikipedia :
[i]"British Telecommunications, trading as British Telecom, was formed in 1980, and became independent of the Post Office in 1981".[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group
Up until that point BT was part of the Post Office/GPO
I have no idea what you mean by "[i]Harold Wilson, well known Tory PM[/i]", are you trying to suggest that Harold Wilson privatised BT? I know you're a bit weird ninfan but are you completely bonkers?
The BBC swinging to the right in recent years has been pretty unsettling.
One of the first things the Tories did post-election was very obviously put a gun to the BBC's head. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Double post
No, he does not. The thing is the more you lot misrepresent....
It's really annoying that isn't it. It's like claiming that the Tories want to privatise everything, including the NHS. Total nonsense spouted with regularity by both sides. LW v RW, Nationalise v Privatise, Black v White.
For a member of the more mature age group, old Jezza is a bit of a dab hand on Twitter (ok his team is). It's pretty impressive stuff if you like that kind of thing.
The BBC is biased ...... 😉
Thought I'd get this in before Binners does...
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/liz-kendall-losing-faith-in-aspiration-20150812101013 ]Liz Kendall losing faith in aspiration[/url]
Dazh, that produced a real coke zero down the nostrils moment. 😀
"It turns out...." Was the culprit!!!
Still not had my vetting phone call yet after signing up yesterday.
takes a while Dazh, I think it was about a week before they called me back
They phoned me the next day. I was obviously highly valued 8)
Although I only got my first email from Corbyn yesterday, he was the last, git 🙁 Yvette Cooper emailed me weeks ago. I've even had an email from Alan Johnson singing the praises of Tessa Jowell, quote :
[i]It starts with a look. Then a double take. Then a smile. A moment to work up the confidence and then they come over. Tessa cannot leave the house without meeting new people who want to say hello. I have seen this a hundred times, and believe me it’s not normal – no other politician inspires such warmth.
Tessa is a star. She is Labour’s Kylie - everyone loves her and she only needs a first name. She has a remarkable way with people that generates real affection.[/i]
I have always intensely disliked Tessa Jowell, I dislike her almost as much as I dislike Tony Blair. For me she epitomizes a worthless self-serving New Labour politician. Calling her "Labour’s Kylie" is beyond satire.
Just as a counter to the whole Road To Serfdom bullsh!t, have some [url= https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Great_Transformation.html?id=xHy8oKa4RikC&hl=en ]Polanyi[/url].
Tessa is a star. She is Labour’s Kylie - everyone loves her and she only needs a first name. She has a remarkable way with people that generates real affection.
FFS no one warned me that my inbox was going to be spammed with Labour Party Mills & Boon soft porn. I want my 3 quid back!
It's like claiming that the Tories want to privatise everything, including the NHS. Total nonsense spouted with regularity by both sides
Making up stuff again THM?
No one claims that the Tories want to privatise everything, just the juicy bits. The Tories like profit to be private and loss to be public.
And you are in denial if you want to pretend that the Tories aren't interested in further privatisation of health care provisions in the UK, especially the nice juicy bits with potential for nice fat profits.
[url= https://twitter.com/CorbynWarnings ]https://twitter.com/CorbynWarnings[/url]
😀
Does being a UKIP sympathiser stop you from reading STW threads?
😀
Ernie, I appreciate the discussion has moved on but a note on privatisations, one of the most significant benefits of privatising a state business is in the reduction of future pension liabilities. Also under EU rules it is very difficult to nationalise a private business to the point of being pretty much impractical. Also state owned businesses have more leverage to hold a government hostage, we saw that extensively in the 1970's and the public don't want that again. Just imagine how much worse the disruption would be on the tube if where fully state owned, total chaos.
On a slightly different note, if Corbyn wins I predict he will not be leader beyond 3 years and absolutely not by the time of the next General Election in. 2020. He cannot win a general election and the Parliamentary Labour Party know it, those MPs who backed his candidacy purely to widen the debate are getting their decision now I'm sure
if Corbyn wins I predict he will not be leader beyond 3 years and absolutely not by the time of the next General Election in. 2020. He cannot win a general election and the Parliamentary Labour Party know it
Why can he not win a general election? It's not like the tories have a massive majority, he presents a direct challenge to the SNP hegemony in Scotland, he has many policies which will attract former libdem supporters, and he appears to be mobilising huge support from the labour base support, the young, and apathetic voters. When you add all that up I'm not sure you can be so sure.
Why can he not win a general election?
Well, you see, it goes like this...we just keep saying it over and over and over and over and over and over again and it becomes true. I think...like.
Where is Jack Straw these days?
He's waiting at home for a big pile of cash to turn up. He can't be expected to have an opinion without being paid for it.
he appears to be mobilising huge support from the labour base support, the young, and apathetic voters.
The thing about apathy is that it'll be back, especially with 4.5 years until the next election to get them off the sofa.
jambalaya - Member
He cannot win a general election and the Parliamentary Labour Party know it,
A 3% swing puts the tories and labour back neck and neck. It's no beyond the realms of possibility, particularly with the popular support corbyn is building up.
If his plan is to continue on this vein and build up the labour party from the grass roots , it'll be shooty in for him come election time imo.
[quote=dazh said]
Why can he not win a general election? It's not like the tories have a massive majority, he presents a direct challenge to the SNP hegemony in Scotland, he has many policies which will attract former libdem supporters, and he appears to be mobilising huge support from the labour base support, the young, and apathetic voters. When you add all that up I'm not sure you can be so sure.
The party will implode long before election time.
And, he'll be 71 in 2020, positively doddery 🙂
Wow... Well there's 2 people that should get kicked out of their parties already because of this campaign- Danczuk, and Tim Loughton.
Why can he not win a general election?
Because that would challenge the neo-liberal, free market consensus, and we all know that you're not allowed to do that.
Just to throw another element in here: given that George is barely getting started with his promised slash and burn austerity agenda - as thm never tires of telling us 😉 - and given the increasingly bonkers policy suggestions coming out of their favoured thinktanks, just how popular do you think the Tory party are going to be in another four and a half years? Whats the country going to be looking like by that point?
They say a week is along time in politics. 4.5 years is a bloody eternity.
And remember : the people who are saying that Corbyn can't win were saying Dave couldn't win, right the way up to the exit polls landing at 10 o clock at night on election day.
Personally I doubt corbyns aim is to become next PM tbh, I reckon he's more interested in steering the party away from blair/tory-ism.
binners - Member
Just to throw another element in here: given that George is barely getting started with his promised slash and burn austerity agenda - as thm never tires of telling us - and given the increasingly bonkers policy suggestions coming out of their favoured thinktanks, just how popular do you think the Tory party are going to be in another four and a half years?
Particularly after a tory leadership contest, and even more particularly if Boris wins it! 😆
@Binners. THM's right on that at least, Osborne's really not following austerity at all, it's just a convenient lie- he's interested in slashing and burning, he just doesn't care whether or not it helps the deficit, or even when it makes it worse. The point is the slashing, it's not a means to an end for him.
TBH his privatisation schedule suggests that he doesn't expect them to win the next election either- he wants to get the damage done and irrevocable before then.
Also state owned businesses have more leverage to hold a government hostage,
what, just like the banks?
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
This is great. Must clear my diary so I can book a ringside seat.
Personally I doubt corbyns aim is to become next PM tbh, I reckon he's more interested in steering the party away from blair/tory-ism.
I think this is partly true, maybe. Regardless it'll be the end result, which can only be a good thing.
Why can he not win a general election? It's not like the tories have a massive majority, he presents a direct challenge to the SNP hegemony in Scotland, he has many policies which will attract former libdem supporters, and he appears to be mobilising huge support from the labour base support, the young, and apathetic voters. When you add all that up I'm not sure you can be so sure.
Also, the naysayers are apparently people who thought Ed did have a chance.
This leadership election has been like a clown car, especially reading Alastair Campbell yesterday saying it's the [i]media[/i] who are making it into a circus.
All the opposition to Corbyn is just galvanising his support, [url= https://twitter.com/RevRichardColes/status/624158078183862272 ]and[/url]
I think one reason why Jeremy Corbyn is doing well is that his words don't sound like they've been signed off by daleks.
I think some people are very naive with regards to the right-wing political elite which controls the Labour Party. The fact that this leadership contest shows just how completely at odds they are with the Labour Party membership emphasises just how powerful they are.
For years their stalinist grip of the party has silence dissent. OK they have clearly made a very major blunder by allowing Corbyn a platform in the leadership contest, but it will be fairly easy for them should Corbyn win to have him replaced long before the next general election.
This is the first real attempt to win the Labour Party back since the hard right first seized power over 20 years ago. Ultimately it will almost certainly fail, the Labour Party cannot be saved imo, as this whole fiasco I have no doubt will eventually prove.
Of course Lab/he can win. The headlines mask the reality - that's why it's so extraordinary that Labour are getting themselves in such a pickle. The we lost because we weren't LW enough/we were too left wing misses the point completely.
They let the SNP steal the false ground of being anti-austerity (no really) and the Tories (thank you NW!) of being pro-austerity and then the other parties collapsed in spectacular fashion - buggered by Scotland and the Lib demos and not connected with the big segments that happen to turn out more than their normal support. Even engaging with the the loyal non-voters as Jezza appears to be doing is a only a side show. They key is getting the main segments of the UK population (and who bother to vote) to trust you again. Hence the cock up over Ed forgetting to mention the word deficit, it mattered because of how they lost the positioning issue.
Clause IV, nationalisation, beards, marks and spencer, are all just part of the silly side show.
Meanwhile in the real world, people get on with running businesses and their lives. Given the low esteem in which we hold these mupsters, it's amazing that people want them more involved in allocations scarce resources. Bizarre....