Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
It's the Sleaford by-election this Thursday. I'm unaware of whether the Mods will be present.
The Tories will walk it, but I'd put my house on UKIP leap-frogging Labour into second, having nicked all their former voters, and with the lib dems scoooping up the middle class, anti-Brexit lot, labour finishing dead last with a minuscule percentage of the vote, and probably losing their deposit. Again.
Corbyn will once again say nothing, change nothing, and blindly bungle on to lead the Labour Party into repeating exactly this scenario all over the country, at the next general election. So the former 'heartlands' will look like Scotland does now. A Labour free zone
Binns, you are being harsh. Jezza was
Yesterday, I visited Terezin Memorial - a World War II concentration camp and former Jewish ghetto. Never forget
responding to recent criticism - deserved or otherwise - yesterday. Good for him.
Token gesture TMH he declined to visit Israel recently and sent Tom Watson instead to a global Labour Party event. The head of the Israeli Labour Party said on British TV recently Corbyn "has a problem with Jews". As far as I am aware he last visted the region (Gaza) at the invitation of and paid for by Hamas.
C'mon Jambas, small steps and all that. Give the old boy a break.
[quote="dazh"] - Member
Doesn't matter what Corbyn says, or what his supporters say, or whether it's justified or not. The simple fact is that he's become an object of ridicule in the mind of the general populace
And why is that? - the antics on the labour front benches. Watson, Benn, Cooper etc are the problem briefing against him. Not Corbyn.
He's not a very good leader by any chance?
Jamba - will you stop with the antisematic lies. You have repeatedly been show to be completely wrong on that.
One anti-Semitic quote from Corbyn please. Just one ( note anti Isreal does not equal anti-Semitic)
And why is that? - the antics on the labour front benches. Watson, Benn, Cooper etc are the problem briefing against him. Not Corbyn.
(I reluctantly had to conclude that) even so, this is still a Corbyn issue.
Those people are his staff. He needs to manage them, get them inspired and motivated to work for him and push his vision for what Britain and British politics should be.
If he can't get them on board then he's failing as a leader. Just like if a company's staff think their boss is a witless oaf and refuse to work for him, you can't say it's everyone else's fault. The boss has to bear some responsibility - it's what he's paid for.
Corbyn seems a nice bloke with some good ideas. But he isn't a leader.
And why is that? - the antics on the labour front benches.
Yes, that's part of it. Also part of it is that he's a sh*te and - most importantly - unwilling leader, another that the media are out to get him. But it doesn't matter any more, the damage is done. There is no way he can come back from it. The only choice left for him is to step aside in the hope that labour's fortunes can turn around under someone else, or hang on and take the party down with him. I'm still hoping he'll take the third option of staying long enough to reform the party then stepping aside, but as the hole he digs gets bigger, the harder it will be to get out of it.
Or a 4th option Dazh - turn Labour into what it was - a ground up not top down organisation where the elected representatives represent the peoiple who vote for them
Undo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
Some encouraging signs with the large influx of members. Just need to get rid of the deadwood at the top. Those so deluded they cannot understand their antics are destroying their party.
But I do agree its very hard to see how it can be turned around now
turn Labour into what it was - a ground up not top down organisation where the elected representatives represent the peoiple who vote for them
Isn't that the 3rd option I just mentioned? I totally agree that's what the labour party should be, but not with him at the head of it going into the next election.
Actually another part of it is that the team around him are hopelessly out of their depth. The cyber physical systems stupidity is a perfect example. I've never worked in PR or the media, yet even I could have seen that was a stupid thing to do. Somehow, the idiots around him in the space of little over a year, have turned him from an anti-establishment honest voice of the people, into an elitist urbanista with the personality of a jaded history lecturer. That takes some doing.
Undo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
Ahh yes, those dirty, election winning swine - never again, never forget.
😆
Undo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
Ah, the re-writing of history continues. Let us airbrush the success of the Sedgfield model from Labour's history lest Tony Blair ever be associated with anything positive!!!
Labour has a history of successfully winning new members but one of losing them quickly too!
cranberry - thats a myth tho - under Blair labours vote and polling consistently dropped. It was Kinnock and Smith who made labour electable again. Blair sewed the seeds for the state labour is in now by hollowing it out.
Alternatively
Following Tony Blair’s election as leader in 1994 a sustained expansion of Labour’s membership took place. As well as benefiting from local strategies to target members, the party allocated considerable resources to recruitment at a national level in the form of advertisements and staff. Labour also benefited from an extremely favourable political climate in which the Conservative administration was exceptionally unpopular in the opinion polls.
Never let facts get in the way of a good yarn...
Is THM still answering my posts?
[quote="teamhurtmore"]
teamhurtmore said something stupid.
is all I see
No just correcting your regular factual errors. Its like a PSA!
Fact check:
THM's quote is correct for the first few years but Blair was leader for a bit longer than that. Membership did indeed rise from 92 til 96, but it then fell steadily for the entire remainder of Blair's leadership. By 2001 it was back at the level it was in 92. And by 2007 it was about half what it had been in 92.
"There was a fall in membership during Labour’s time in office between 1997 and 2009"
(just for clarity, I know Blair was no longer leader by 2009- that's just when it bottomed out on that long decline from 97
Source: House Of Commons.
teamhurtmore - MemberNever let facts get in the way of a good yarn...
True - NW, I was addressing the whitewashing of the success of the Sedgefield model and the rise of party membership under Blair's leadership. Of course you are correct about this being unsustainable too - hence my comment about Labour being very good at losing members.
Life is often different in power - ask Cleggy!!
TJ he has turned a very blind eye to disgraceful anti-semitic behaviour again and again. He has facilitated the cover up of anti-semtic behaviour by party and Momentum members at OULC. When you get someone who has met with, invited to Westminster (thus legitimising) deeply anti-Semitic individuals, desribed Hezbollah and Hamas as friends and been chairman of an organisation riddled with anti-semites in Stop The War, then that's complicit.
The Labour Party has never been a less safe space for Jews than it is now. I have heard that first hand from Jewish Labour Party members, most recently in October.
The Commons Home Affairs Committee said Corbyn had created a [b]safe space for anti-Semitism[/b] in the Labour Party.
TMH he could have published the first anti-Semitism report in full (imo he did not as it's too daming and he has promoted some of the activists). He could have presided over a real investigation under Chakrabati rather than the whitewash she produced in retrun for a peerage. He could have intervened when a Momentum activist used an age old anti-Semtic remark that Jews control the media in a conspiracy at the public meeting where he was supposed to be releasing the Shabrabati report. One of his very few Jewish MPs left the meeting as a result and his responce was to cosy up all smiles to the abuser.
cranberry - thats a myth tho - under Blair labours vote and polling consistently dropped. It was Kinnock and Smith who made labour electable again.
versus
Following Tony Blair’s election as leader in 1994 a sustained expansion of Labour’s membership took place.
Anyone can see which is factually correct - except those who block me of course. They are destined to remain in the darkness.
Kinnock 272k
Smith 279-305K
Blair 94-97, 305k - 405k
By 2000 back to 311k
And now Jezza's back and better than all of them!!! 😉
[By 2009, it was under 40 per cent of what it had been when Labour was elected to office in May 1997.] Such a decline was all the more noteworthy, of course, because back in the mid-1990s developing a mass membership base was taken to be a defining feature of New Labour, one that was intimately associated with Tony Blair’s leadership of the party and with techniques pioneered in Sedgefield, his parliamentary constituency in the North-East of England. Between 1994 and 1997 membership had increased spectacularly, reaching just over four hundred thousand, but thereafter the party had proved unable to hold onto its membership. Moreover, the increase since May 2010 does not appear to have been sustained.
For those opposed to staying in the dark, the source was
Labour’s lost grassroots: the rise and fall of party membership
Well, we all know that in the 21st century, in this brave new world of technology, communication, and social media, the barometer for forthcoming electoral success is surely increasing the number of people who carry a little card around with them, in their wallet, or purse, to announce which political party they intend to vote for.
That and the tractor production figures. Good tractor production figures are essential too eh comrade!
Well, we all know that in the 21st century, in this brave new world of technology, communication, and social media
[img] 
[/img]
Jamba - so nothing then at all just attacks from his political enemies
Not a single antisemetic remark or action from him at all that you can quote in any way.
so once again you are shown to be talking baseless rubbish
THM is keen to ignore what TJ actually said.
tjagain - MemberUndo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
This categorically happened. 4 years of growth don't dispel 11 years of decline. Under Blair, membership tanked to an all-time low.
It wasn't that it was an "unsustainable rise"- he's not being criticised for not sustaining the rise. That'd be a fair point if it'd fallen to pre-Blair levels, but of course it didn't, the fall didn't even slow as it passed through pre-Blair levels.
"Your sales have fallen disastrously this year"
"No they haven't- they went up in January and February!"
"But then they went down in March and didn't stop falling til December, and your year end results are half what they were last year"
"But they rose! Anyone can see this is factually correct! If you disagree you are destined to remain in the darkness!"
"You're fired"
"No I'm not! You're just whitewashing my success!"
let's not forget that all parties' membership figures have been declining too. (until Jez). - and the Tories lost just as many members from 97 to 2007 as Labour did.
In fact Maggie lost a lot more members during her time as leader of the tories than Blair did for Labour...
Source:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf#page=8
Oh goodie, a NW lets argue against something that hasnt been said session!!
They did doris - but one thing that cannot be refuted is the success that Blair had in Sedgefield and as leader of the party originally. So that falsifies TJ point - which was my point. NW will no doubt try to twist this into something else - see above ^
diris except the SNP - who at one point had more members than any other UK party IIRC but now overtaken by Labour ( perhaps)
1:10 of the scots population are now SNP members
diris except the SNP - who at one point had more members than any other UK party IIRC but now overtaken by Labour ( perhaps)1:10 of the scots population are now SNP members
where are you getting these numbers?
The National says they're on 120K, wiki says 120K - which is about one in 40. Labour are now on 500K-ish, and have never been below about 200...
sources:
etc
PSA alert
1:10 of the scots population are now SNP members
If I read this correctly 1:10 is 10%.
SNP membership is 120,000....you do the maths...(population is about 5.4million)
Perhaps 2% is closer to the mark, but never let facts....you know the rest....
Shall we start an amusing tag to go with that? TJFact, perhaps? Too close to Jambafacts?
😉
No that would be unkind and stooping to the levels of the Jamba baiters! 😉
PSA alerts should be fine.
So ... serious question Uncle Jezza.... how do you think the beardy messiah's clear and concise message, and commanding, inspiring leadership is going to play out at the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election on Thursday?
I'm going for Labour finishing dead last, and losing their deposit, overtaken by both UKIP and the Lib Dems. Do you see a different outcome?
Binners - no idea about the byelection. I have no knowledge or interest in it really so couldn't predict. I am afraid I have lost all real interest in English politics / even polityics in gneral to a great extent given recent events.
Intersting Doris - I thought they had hit over 400 000. Blame an old mans memory.
CFH - hence "IIRC" which means I was sloppy and didn't factcheck. shouldn't rely on my memory should I 😳
Old age, TJ, it comes to us all eventually. 😉
or Wings over Scotland 😉
teamhurtmore - MemberThey did doris - but one thing that cannot be refuted is the success that Blair had in Sedgefield and as leader of the party originally. So that falsifies TJ point - which was my point.
It simply does not falsify TJ's point, and it's pretty absurd to claim it does. TJ said Blair "turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership", which the numbers show is true. A short rise doesn't cancel an overall decline and does nothing at all to falsify TJ's point- which was an uncontroversial statement of fact, yet which THM claimed was "re-writing of history".
It's all written on the previous page, in words. But we've got THM's standard tactic of saying one thing, making an argument about something else, then pretending that the one supports the other. A reverse strawman, as it were.
Bravo. QED.
Since you are on a roll, have a crack at the 1:10 point now. That takes a bit more imagination mind...bon chance
short rise v 30% increase 94-97 😀
Nicely put Northwind. this is why I block THMs posts
teamhurtmore - MemberSince you are on a roll, have a crack at the 1:10 point now
That one was bollocks obviously, and he admitted his mistake, sooooo
which is an improvement, your turn now...
Northwind - really - its much less frustrating to simply ignore him.
Yes just ignore me and pretend that a 30% mebership increase didn't happen and that the so-called Sedgefield model never existed. Much easier....
if you are actually interested in what happened
For 1991-93, these figures reveal the staggering extent of the membership crisis that confronted Labour by the time Blair became leader. Nearly 80,000 people left the party in 1991 alone. In the following two years a further 70,000 departed. In both years the net effect was limited by a considerable number joining. In all, departures between those three years alone represented nearly 50 per cent of the 1990 total.
But better to blame the perma-tanned one - surely a coincidence that his predecessor and successor were of a certain nationality ? 😉
Over 14.0 per cent of members left the party in 2008, the first full year of Gordon Brown’s premiership.
[quote="teamhurtmore"]
teamhurtmore said something stupid.
You talking to me? I doesn't get thru the blocker you know. Its much more fun this way.
No, just making sure that people arent being misled.
teamhurtmore - MemberYes just ignore me and pretend that a 30% mebership increase didn't happen
Nobody is doing that, of course. Why would we? TJ's post was about Blair's time in office, not just the 4 years of it when membership rose but the years which followed where it collapsed to the lowest point in a century.
You claimed TJ was "re-writing history" but you keep quoting from "Labour's Lost Grassroots" which makes it perfectly clear that TJ is correct and that membership crashed under Blair.
Seriously northwind - do not engage with him. It only encourages his nonsense and misrepresentation. Best ignored like all trolls. You won't change his arrogant views in anty way nor will the truth shine thru to him. So best ignored.
QED^2
Why would we?
A good question
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/trotskyist-factions-seeking-to-take-over-momentum-member-claims ]Has Binners seen this yet?[/url] 😀
Save reading the article, it can be summed up with an old song:
One trot faction sitting in a hall
One trot faction sitting in a hall
And if one trot faction stands up to speak
There'll be two trot factions sitting in a hall
Two trot factions sitting in a Hall...
( repeat until bored with their childish nonsense )
Momentum really are the most un-electable far left wing jerk fest. Labour will never get back in power with these lot having any say. Blair really was the best they ever had.
There was always a certain inevitability to that Daz
[img] 
[/img]
😀
A mate of mine got involved with momentum down in Oxford. He told me that at the start it was all young idealistic activists, then the old lefties got involved, and strangled it with procedure, rules and committees, so all the young enthusiastic kids left, At least we know that no one has to do anything to fight them, as they'll quickly destroy themselves with their bickering.
This summed it up for me...
[i]Murray’s blog claimed that a row over the form of internal voting structure the group should use at a meeting of its national committee on Saturday ended in bullying and intimidation. Murray, who advises Labour’s town hall spokesman, Grahame Morris, accused AWL members of bullying those they suspect of being “rightwing” or “alt-Stalinist” members. [/i]
I don't even know what alt-Stalinism is. Nor do I want too. I suspect that only about 23 other people in the country actually do, and yes this is one of the less obscure Momentum factions 😆
Which links back to the diverted discussion yesterday dazh. Labour have a track record - Blair and Corbyn - of attracting new members and an even better record at losing them. Is history merely repeating itself? We have Militant and the cuckoos back, will we now have a collapse in membership and electoral irrelevance too?
Wonder what our leader is up to in the middle of all this?
This weekend I was meeting with other socialist & progressive leaders from Europe to discuss how we'll combat the rise of the populist right pic.twitter.com/iuj7kWi5yw
Which reminds me of the child's poen
Tis a strange bird, the cuckoo, sitting in the grass
It's wings neatly folded, it's beak up its *
In this strange position it mutters , "twit, twit"
'cos it's hard to sing cuckoo with a beak full of *
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/momentum-hope-saved-saboteurs-sectarian-labour ]More on the internecine tribulations of momentum.[/url] Completely fits with what I've been told by various people. Tragic really. Whether you like Corbyn or not, the injection of new energy and thinking into the labour party was/is clearly a good thing. Ironic that the blairite PLP and the old 1980s trots seem to be allies in repelling this new movement. And no doubt as a result the labour party will get exactly what it deserves at the ballot box.
video of recent meeting
Whether you like Corbyn or not, the injection of new energy and thinking
Eh ? new thinking ?
" I wish it were 1978 before all our ideas were conclusively shown to be utter shite"
"Me too comrade, Me too"
"Let's trash the Labour Party"
"Yes, lets, it will be jolly good fun"
There's zero new thinking in trying to re-fail the failures of the past with a smattering of Twitter.
Corbyns entire 'manifesto' was written in the late 70's, and hasn't evolved one single bit ever since.
The only reason its getting an airing now is that theres a new generation of gullible idiots who weren't around to see what a disaster it was first time around
Eh ? new thinking ?
FFS Have you even read that piece? If you had you'd know I'm not talking about Corbyn or the rest of his ilk from the 70s/80s, I'm talking about the under-30s who've joined momentum in the hope that they can forge a new way of doing politics.
theres a new generation of gullible idiots who weren't around to see what a disaster it was first time around
They only have experience of post-thatcher/blair debt, zero hours contracts, sh*tty jobs, unaffordable houses, zero social mobility, a longer working life, and rising taxes to pay for the pensions and healthcare of people who had everything they don't. Compared to that the 1970s looks like a utopian dream.
They only have experience of post-thatcher/blair debt, zero hours contracts, sh*tty jobs, unaffordable houses, zero social mobility, a longer working life, and rising taxes to pay for the pensions and healthcare of people who had everything they don't. Compared to that the 1970s looks like a utopian dream.
I do feel sorry for the current young generation, who alongside all the beneficial reforms of the 80's and increased life expectancy, greater social mobility and better housing, have to suffer from the fact that the country is saddled with high taxes to pay for all the times in the past that money has been spaffed up the wall by governments buying votes - not least the ponzi scheme that is the old age pension.
Cranberry - we are lower taxed than most comparable countries. Remember we get healthcare for our taxes - most others do not.
We are a low tax low wage economy
Indeed - I should have written "higher taxes" a comparison with what previous generations paid for the benefits that they get/got out of the system against my/the younger generation.
My parents generation were very lucky, the bill for final salary pensions, a state pension for them all from 60/65 and free health care is being paid by people who won't get the same when their time comes.
All successive governments do is tinker with the very edges of the pensions problem then kick it down the road, safe in the knowledge that they will be sat at home with a nice final salary pension when the problems hit the generations working and paying the bill.
TMH 🙂
There are some of us who think Momentum has always had a strong AWL influence. Jill Mountford was adressing / chairing Momentum meetings many months ago.
not least the ponzi scheme that is the old age pension.
Careful @cranbury you'll have TJ telling you to read a dictionary. You are absolutely correct including about how governments just kick the can down the road so it's someone else's problem. NHS is much the same. Neither are topics anyone can have a sensible conversation on.
taxes were higher in previous generations as well - certainly direct taxation
We are a low tax low wage economy
PSA this might not be true
taxes were higher in previous generations as well - certainly direct taxation
They certainly were for some in the one-term, insane Labour governments that were tough on prosperity and tough on the causes of prosperity.
You could IIRC be taxed up to 96% ( income tax of 80% and a surcharge for "unearned" income such as share dividends )
Did it work ?
Look on the bright side, fourth is better than fifth.
Well you cannot with someoen who wants to get rid of it. NHS is much the same. Neither are topics anyone can have a sensible conversation on.
in much the same way if i said we should have no pensions at all and only private stuff folk can afford i doubt i would get a sensible conversation - I am sure i would get a reply from RW extremists but it would not be sensible
Your views on the NHS are very very at the margins of anyone in the UK
You could IIRC be taxed up to 96% ( income tax of 80% and a surcharge for "unearned" income such as share dividends )
Full employment, university grants, affordable housing stocks, Well funded NHS schools etc , you tell me if it worked?
PS the tories also had high rates of tax it was not just a Labour thing it was the post war consensus thing.
Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with facts will know (1) tax take has been remarkably constant for a long time, albeit with different make up, and (2) that we rank close to average among OECD countries in terms of tax levels ie a middle taxing country.
But let's not let this get in the way...
Anyone seen Jezzas twitter feed this morning...?
Full employment
Merely full employment? Today we we have to import 300,000 new workers every year to keep up with the number of new jobs.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/conservatives-hold-sleaford-north-hykeham-by-election/ ]Somewhat predictably... labour dead last on 10%[/url]
Comrade Corbyn better get used to looking at that share of the vote. Under him, thats Labours position in our new political culture. They just had a despairing Labour MP (surely now an endangered species) on radio 4. She (just) stopped short of saying 'we're going to lose every seat apart from Islington at the next election with that ****-wit at the helm', but that was the obvious implication.
Will there be any comment from the beardy one today? Of course not. It'll be business as usual. Whatever that is. A socialist knitting convention in Warsaw? Whatever it takes to drag the labour party further into the electoral wilderness.....
Even I've had enough of him now.
😐
I'm beginning to wonder whether Jezza is on a mission to re-unite the country. It seems only he can get pro and anti-brexiters to agree on something. 🙂
🙂
Labour are doing wonderfully well, to say anything else is just media bias surely ? Labour are where they are at the ballot box and in the polls without being attacked by Tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems. At a General Election they are going to face a withering attack.
Andy Burnham is making the right choice and looking elsewhere for employment
At a General Election they are going to face a withering attack.
...not if no one can find where we're hiding.
Andy Burnham is making the right choice and looking elsewhere for employment
He's played a blinder. Deployed his ejector seat, and getting out of the way of the upcoming electoral juggernaut, without looking disloyal to he-who-must-be-obeyed.
My prediction is that freed from the Westminster Labour doom-quagmire, he'll be a considerably more effective opposition leader in his self-imposed Northern Exile, than the useless beardy bloke floundering hopelessly in his Islington 6th form echo chamber
anybody else's twitter working today - mine is not refreshing so cant see any comment from Jezza yet?