Labour Party Leadership

[fulshie]

Is it just me or, is the Scottish Labour Supporters stuck between a rock and a hard place if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership race. The reason I state this is because, if he wins then surely that would subject Scotland to guaranteed Tory Westminster Governments although on the other hand its his policies that the Scottish Labour Supporter wants.

[Northernhibee]

I'm a Labour party member and am voting for Corbyn. I think that the last few weeks has opened the eyes to a lot of people that what they want is left of centre politics and would mark a really good step forward for the Labour party. It'd provide real opposition from the Tories and would help strengthen the trade unions again which we're needing in the United Kingdom at this moment in time.

[Pretty Boy]

I think Corbyn is a really interesting candidate and it's good for the party he is standing.

If he is elected and flops, as is predicted, then the big noises in the parliamentary Labour Party can state with proof that the left is dead and has been well and truly rejected. If he succeeds then for the party in the short term great, in the long term it's a wait and see moment and we'd see arguably the biggest ideological shift in UK politics since 1979.

I don't really know a lot about the man and as I no longer have a vote in a Labour leadership contest my interest has been passing. Some of the attempts to smear and discredit him seem a bit off though.

[Beefster]

Some of the attempts to smear and discredit him seem a bit off though.

It's not so much smears IMHO. It's just total panic at the realisation that there's a serious chance of him winning. All very reminiscent of a certain point in the referendum campaign.

[fulshie]

I'm a Labour party member and am voting for Corbyn. I think that the last few weeks has opened the eyes to a lot of people that what they want is left of centre politics and would mark a really good step forward for the Labour party. It'd provide real opposition from the Tories and would help strengthen the trade unions again which we're needing in the United Kingdom at this moment in time.
I totally agree with you that we need centre to left policy's BUT, getting Scotland to acknowledge that is easy, its middle England that needs shifting and I honestly think that's not far off an impossibility. They only voted for Tony Blair because he changed the whole Labour political outlook to centre right.

[RyeSloan]

I totally agree with you that we need centre to left policy's BUT, getting Scotland to acknowledge that is easy, its middle England that needs shifting and I honestly think that's not far off an impossibility. They only voted for Tony Blair because he changed the whole Labour political outlook to centre right.


Corbyn is not centre left from where I sit....full renationalisation of a number of industries and funding bumper government spending directly by using the BoE to print as much cash as he deems required for centrally decided 'investment' is hardly middle ground policies.

Anyway my views on his policies aside it is fascinating in a type of morbid way...not only the bizarre voting rules (sure I read recently there is now 400,000 new members?!?) but just how removed Corbyn is from the recent mainstream party. This could seriously split Labour in two and may cause an irreversible change (for good or bad who knows) in British politics. Miliband may have lost the election but as the voting system was his creation (ironically enough in an attempt to dilute the voting block of the unions that got him the gig in the first place) he may well have a lasting legacy well beyond even what he could have imagined.

Of course it could all end up a damp squib but none the less it's making irresistible viewing...

[R'Albin]

I think Corbyn is a really interesting candidate and it's good for the party he is standing.

If he is elected and flops, as is predicted, then the big noises in the parliamentary Labour Party can state with proof that the left is dead and has been well and truly rejected. If he succeeds then for the party in the short term great, in the long term it's a wait and see moment and we'd see arguably the biggest ideological shift in UK politics since 1979.

I don't really know a lot about the man and as I no longer have a vote in a Labour leadership contest my interest has been passing. Some of the attempts to smear and discredit him seem a bit off though.

My new personal favourite:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/louise-menschs-bid-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires

[Pretty Boy]

My new personal favourite:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/louise-menschs-bid-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires

Given her somewhat sketchy knowledge of Judaism, including saying she would refer to Theodor Herzl as anti Semitic if he used the term Zionist, I'm somewhat surprised to see that rather than backing down after this she seems to be ramping up her 'Cornyn is an anti Semite' campaign in the last few hours.

[Colr]

I voted for Liz but I'm one of the few.

[ronaldo7]

The long list of Labour Establishment coming out and attacking Corbyn has played into his hands. The media are raking up as much crap for him as possible. They're even mentioning Militant now, and how the right wingers thought they'd cleared them all out.

Blair, Brown, and Boothroyd. What a midfield that is eh:greengrin

[Alex Trager]

Very interesting.

Could finally be the radicalisation this country needs to propel us back into the way of things pre thatcher.
I say radical, it is not all that radical at all, but the current way of things means we look upon the policies he is proposing as radical.

A labour man that is truly for the labour man.

The establishment are starting to get into full swing trying to ensure we don't see him as the leader.

He will take us back to the place where the many hold the power rather than the few.

Go for it

[Colr]

Very interesting.

Could finally be the radicalisation this country needs to propel us back into the way of things pre thatcher.
I say radical, it is not all that radical at all, but the current way of things means we look upon the policies he is proposing as radical.

A labour man that is truly for the labour man.

The establishment are starting to get into full swing trying to ensure we don't see him as the leader.

He will take us back to the place where the many hold the power rather than the few.

Go for it

Propel us back?

[Beefster]

Very interesting.

Could finally be the radicalisation this country needs to propel us back into the way of things pre thatcher.
I say radical, it is not all that radical at all, but the current way of things means we look upon the policies he is proposing as radical.

A labour man that is truly for the labour man.

The establishment are starting to get into full swing trying to ensure we don't see him as the leader.

He will take us back to the place where the many hold the power rather than the few.

Go for it

If you really are 22, you'll have about as much idea of how things were pre-Thatcher than I do about how tough it was living during the Highland Clearances. I'm in my early 40s and can barely remember it.

[Alex Trager]

Propel us back?


If you really are 22, you'll have about as much idea of how things were pre-Thatcher than I do about how tough it was living during the Highland Clearances. I'm in my early 40s and can barely remember it.

I have read a lot about this recently.

I know the trade unions had a massive strong hold meaning that the working man was well represented.

I know there were institutions like British rail, a company I have no memory of.
British Gas.
Royal Mail.

I know these companies were publicly funded.

These two aspects are pre thatcher.

And they are a positive for a country

[CropleyWasGod]

I have read a lot about this recently.

I know the trade unions had a massive strong hold meaning that the working man was well represented.

I know there were institutions like British rail, a company I have no memory of.
British Gas.
Royal Mail.

I know these companies were publicly funded.

These two aspects are pre thatcher.

And they are a positive for a country
What is this "working man" of which you speak? [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I have read a lot about this recently.

I know the trade unions had a massive strong hold meaning that the working man was well represented.

I know there were institutions like British rail, a company I have no memory of.
British Gas.
Royal Mail.

I know these companies were publicly funded.

These two aspects are pre thatcher.

And they are a positive for a country

This is a tangent, but I would say you are both wrong and right (but not intentionally I suspect).

The Equal Pay Act was introduced in the 1970s but it wasn't until the mid-1990s that serious challenge arose to the fact that women employed in local authorities had far worse terms than men did, for broadly similar work. Once the legal challenges went in (and unions opposed people making individual challenges), the councils had to pay out millions upon millions. I think at one point, Birmingham City Council was facing a bill of nearly £1bn!

This all happened on the public sector unions' watch. They had twenty years to challenge this gross inequity and if I was being cynical I would suggest they didn't bother because it might jeopardise the Ts and Cs of their male staff. They might well have represented the 'working man' but they weren't representing the 'working woman'. Yet that was supposed to be their job.

And to add insult to injury, when councils had to find the money, just like any other time when they have to find the money, it comes out in a way that disproportionately impact on the weaker and more vulnerable in society.

As for your post more generally, I remember the state-owned utilities. They can work very well but they can also be horribly dysfunctional.

Perhaps the important point is that Thatcher, whether one agreed with her or not, managed to set out a narrative that people listened to and believed in large numbers - that those utilities were wasteful, that 'ordinary' people could prosper from the programme of privatisation. And perhaps most importantly that people were in some way entitled to this.

It was a very powerful argument that caught the mood of a lot of people at the time and built up and capitalised on resentment and dissatisfaction with the idea of the state 's role extending so deeply into its population's lives, probably informed by the perception of governmental and economic failures in the previous decade (though admittedly there were wider, more global forces at play).

[degenerated]

This is a tangent, but I would say you are both wrong and right (but not intentionally I suspect).

The Equal Pay Act was introduced in the 1970s but it wasn't until the mid-1990s that serious challenge arose to the fact that women employed in local authorities had far worse terms than men did, for broadly similar work. Once the legal challenges went in (and unions opposed people making individual challenges), the councils had to pay out millions upon millions. I think at one point, Birmingham City Council was facing a bill of nearly £1bn!

This all happened on the public sector unions' watch. They had twenty years to challenge this gross inequity and if I was being cynical I would suggest they didn't bother because it might jeopardise the Ts and Cs of their male staff. They might well have represented the 'working man' but they weren't representing the 'working woman'. Yet that was supposed to be their job.

And to add insult to injury, when councils had to find the money, just like any other time when they have to find the money, it comes out in a way that disproportionately impact on the weaker and more vulnerable in society.

As for your post more generally, I remember the state-owned utilities. They can work very well but they can also be horribly dysfunctional.

Perhaps the important point is that Thatcher, whether one agreed with her or not, managed to set out a narrative that people listened to and believed in large numbers - that those utilities were wasteful, that 'ordinary' people could prosper from the programme of privatisation. And perhaps most importantly that people were in some way entitled to this.

It was a very powerful argument that caught the mood of a lot of people at the time and built up and capitalised on resentment and dissatisfaction with the idea of the state 's role extending so deeply into its population's lives, probably informed by the perception of governmental and economic failures in the previous decade (though admittedly there were wider, more global forces at play).
I would recommend Owen Jones book, the establishment and how they get away with it. The first chapter has some excellent commentary on the outriders and think tanks whose thinking shaped thatchers policies and managed to make their economic model the accepted norm.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Alex Trager]

I would recommend Owen Jones book, the establishment and how they get away with it. The first chapter has some excellent commentary on the outriders and think tanks whose thinking shaped thatchers policies and managed to make their economic model the accepted norm.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

This is the point I was making.

It had become accepted as the norm the way things are nowadays, when forty years ago there was real power in the hands of the unions etc.

It's a fair point to make regarding the women's fight, I will say I never realised this.

My general point remains that in order to stop the gap getting so large between the top and bottom there needs to be a big public sector.

State interference requires higher levels of taxation which those at the top don't want, for obvious reasons.

If Corben gets in.

Watch how the media spin it.
Bearing in mind the media is owned by those at the top, who want to ensure all stays the same.

As has been mentioned, it was the same around the referendum and it'll be the same if he gets in.
They'll go into overdrive to protect what has been worked so hard for to get.

Pre thatcher the highest rate of taxation was 60%
Now it's forty five, is that correct?

That's a fifteen percent reduction.
Meaning they tuck away and extra fifteen percent of their income whilst at the same time the state is reduced and those who so dearly rely on the state are struggling.

Fwiw I believe greater equality would come from a 'fairer' division of profits amongst the workforce.

Obviously I am not for one minute suggesting a ceo gets the same as a foot soldier.
But a drop in wages for him/her, bearing in mind they already have millions and millions, means a rise in wage for 'them'.

It's a corrupt world we live in unfortunately and we will never break it.

[Future17]

Frankie Boyle's take: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/27/how-will-labour-top-losing-the-election-by-losing-its-own-leadership-contest

"Many people thought the Labour party would struggle to top the disaster of losing the general election, but it has silenced the doubters by somehow contriving to lose its own internal leadership election."

:greengrin

[R'Albin]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-corbynmania-alice-in-wonderland

Is there seriously anyone who's going to be persuaded by anything this man has to say?


Frankie Boyle's take: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/27/how-will-labour-top-losing-the-election-by-losing-its-own-leadership-contest

"Many people thought the Labour party would struggle to top the disaster of losing the general election, but it has silenced the doubters by somehow contriving to lose its own internal leadership election."

:greengrin


"Meanwhile, Burnham, who looks as if he has carved Fireman Sam’s face off and laid it carelessly across his own skull" :hilarious

[Colr]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-corbynmania-alice-in-wonderland

Is there seriously anyone who's going to be persuaded by anything this man has to say?




"Meanwhile, Burnham, who looks as if he has carved Fireman Sam’s face off and laid it carelessly across his own skull" :hilarious



Yeh. He only won three landslide elections. Why would anyone listen to him!

[Colr]

I would recommend Owen Jones book, the establishment and how they get away with it. The first chapter has some excellent commentary on the outriders and think tanks whose thinking shaped thatchers policies and managed to make their economic model the accepted norm.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

I can't disagree more. The Establishment was one of the worst, contrived pieces of total rubbish I have ever read.

His other book, Chavs, is excellent, though and I highly recommend it as a insightful analysis of class in the UK.

[Keith_M]

I have read a lot about this recently.

I know the trade unions had a massive strong hold meaning that the working man was well represented.

I know there were institutions like British rail, a company I have no memory of.
British Gas.
Royal Mail.

I know these companies were publicly funded.

These two aspects are pre thatcher.

And they are a positive for a country

Sadly, during the era that you discuss, many in the leadership of the Trade Unions were working for any form of confrontation they possibly could. The rights of the 'working man' were almost irrelevant to these people.

The Trade Unions of the 70s/80s played right into the hands of Thatcher and gave her the mandate, in the eyes of the general public, to remove not only the excessively abused powers of the Trade Unions but, at the same time, many of the safeguards for workers in general.

[easty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34106214

What an odd way to attack Corbyn. He's "under fire" for saying that Bin Laden should have been put on trial rather than just have a hit squad knock down his door and shoot him.

[Future17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34106214

What an odd way to attack Corbyn. He's "under fire" for saying that Bin Laden should have been put on trial rather than just have a hit squad knock down his door and shoot him.

I thought the same thing.

I keep reading how he's "out of step" with mainstream thinking. Is that automatically a bad thing?

[Flynn]

Yeh. He only won three landslide elections. Why would anyone listen to him!

1997 GE. Labour receive 13,518,167 votes. 43.2% of electorate.
2001 GE. Labour receive 10,724,953 votes. 40.7% of electorate.
2005 GE. Labour receive 8,567,589 votes. 35.2% of electorate.

Tony Blair lost 5 million Labour supporters during his leadership. He is also a mass-murdering war criminal. That's why I don't listen to him.

I find it strange that none of the Blairite candidates for the leadership have considered trying to appeal to non-voters (18million of them), rather than moving the party further to the right in an incompetent attempt to win over a small % of Tory voters.

They are doing a grand job of designing the method of their own demise. Not content with losing Scotland, they are now extending their glorious failure to the rest of the UK.

[monktonharp]

this has no relevance to Hibs, and football. it is political, and mainly about an Ex=Socialist Party, which used to be relevant in Scotland. please move it to games or whatever sub forum is more suitable.

[Hibrandenburg]

this has no relevance to Hibs, and football. it is political, and mainly about an Ex=Socialist Party, which used to be relevant in Scotland. please move it to games or whatever sub forum is more suitable.

Sadly the admins seem to agree with you. I applaud the German fans who got this going. Football is there to unite people and that's what they're doing. Us, well obviously we're not ready to get over our political, sectarian or religious differences to come together and do something positive for people in desperate need. Sad day for Hibs net.

[cabbageandribs1875]

someone getting threads mixed up ? :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

Sadly the admins seem to agree with you. I applaud the German fans who got this going. Football is there to unite people and that's what they're doing. Us, well obviously we're not ready to get over our political, sectarian or religious differences to come together and do something positive for people in desperate need. Sad day for Hibs net.

Firstly this isn't even the thread regarding 'Refugees Welcome' so I'm unsure what point the post you are quoting is making. This thread was never on the MB.

Secondly I moved the thread I assume is being referred to. If you read through the thread you will see my own views on the subject. Sadly though the thread went off on a wild tangent with a debate on economic migration that had nothing to do with the actions of the German fans, refugees or football. If people want to use .net as a platform to get a group together to make and display such a banner I, personally speaking, would be willing to be involved and happy to see the site used in such a way. As it was this thread was doing nothing of the sort and had become quite distasteful so was moved.

[marinello59]

Sadly the admins seem to agree with you. I applaud the German fans who got this going. Football is there to unite people and that's what they're doing. Us, well obviously we're not ready to get over our political, sectarian or religious differences to come together and do something positive for people in desperate need. Sad day for Hibs net.

Pretty Boy has given a good explanation of just why the thread was moved.
Nothing to stop you from taking the lead here to get something on display at ER. :aok:

[Hibrandenburg]

Firstly this isn't even the thread regarding 'Refugees Welcome' so I'm unsure what point the post you are quoting is making. This thread was never on the MB.

Secondly I moved the thread I assume is being referred to. If you read through the thread you will see my own views on the subject. Sadly though the thread went off on a wild tangent with a debate on economic migration that had nothing to do with the actions of the German fans, refugees or football. If people want to use .net as a platform to get a group together to make and display such a banner I, personally speaking, would be willing to be involved and happy to see the site used in such a way. As it was this thread was doing nothing of the sort and had become quite distasteful so was moved.


Apologies, I've no idea how that happened. Just glad I popped back onto this thread before I started screaming about censorship and fascist nazi admin **** :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Pretty Boy has given a good explanation of just why the thread was moved.
Nothing to stop you from taking the lead here to get something on display at ER. :aok:

Would love to but distance is a problem. Fortunately there's enough people over here who have started help programmes where I can busy myself. There's some great initiatives going on involving people's workplace that warms the cockles and helps me regain some faith in humanity.

Anyway sorry about my unintentional thread hijack. :greengrin

[Colr]

1997 GE. Labour receive 13,518,167 votes. 43.2% of electorate.
2001 GE. Labour receive 10,724,953 votes. 40.7% of electorate.
2005 GE. Labour receive 8,567,589 votes. 35.2% of electorate.

Tony Blair lost 5 million Labour supporters during his leadership. He is also a mass-murdering war criminal. That's why I don't listen to him.

I find it strange that none of the Blairite candidates for the leadership have considered trying to appeal to non-voters (18million of them), rather than moving the party further to the right in an incompetent attempt to win over a small % of Tory voters.

They are doing a grand job of designing the method of their own demise. Not content with losing Scotland, they are now extending their glorious failure to the rest of the UK.

Yes, the left have been very keen to kill off the whole New Labour project. Two of the main planks of the approach is continual grinding about the Iraq war, the objectives of which (to remove a oppressive dictator) may have been supportable but which was prosecuted badly in leaving an utter vacuum. Bushes objectives, I think, were to finish a job his father had not and he didn't give a stuff about the consequences. Blair got too confident in his role as global policeman following the success of dealing with the Balkans wars after the Tories sat and did nothing to intervene (much as they are doing with current conflicts).

The other has been the failure of to defend the party against the Tory statements that they crashed the economy when it was so obviously the reckless behaviour of the banks - they crash the US economy too but Ed Milliband felt he had to apologize for the Labour party's involvement.

The left seem to be getting the upper hand at the moment and I expect that Blairites will be purged from the party when Corbyn wins. Balir, nevertheless delivered 3 massive election victories.

[Betty Boop]

That's the polls closed then. Gawd I'd love it if Jeremy Corbyn won ! :greengrin

[Sylar]

That's the polls closed then. Gawd I'd love it if Jeremy Corbyn won ! :greengrin

The political "elite" all seem to suggest he'd be the wrong choice.

Seems like a perfect option then :greengrin

****, I'm not agreeing with you AGAIN, am I?

[Betty Boop]

The political "elite" all seem to suggest he'd be the wrong choice.

Seems like a perfect option then :greengrin

****, I'm not agreeing with you AGAIN, am I?
Ken ! :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Well the long drawn out leadership contest is almost over...all I can say is that as Labour have looked so inept at holding a rather straight forward election gawd knows how anyone could ever vote for them to run the country!

[Betty Boop]

Mon Jezza !

[The_Todd]

1997 GE. Labour receive 13,518,167 votes. 43.2% of electorate.
2001 GE. Labour receive 10,724,953 votes. 40.7% of electorate.
2005 GE. Labour receive 8,567,589 votes. 35.2% of electorate.

Tony Blair lost 5 million Labour supporters during his leadership. He is also a mass-murdering war criminal. That's why I don't listen to him.

I find it strange that none of the Blairite candidates for the leadership have considered trying to appeal to non-voters (18million of them), rather than moving the party further to the right in an incompetent attempt to win over a small % of Tory voters.

They are doing a grand job of designing the method of their own demise. Not content with losing Scotland, they are now extending their glorious failure to the rest of the UK.

I keep seeing this argument and it's bonkers. Tony Blair also GAINED those voters in the first place. The first two victories were landslides and the third win was unprecedented for the Labour Party.

Adding in factors such as the clear influence of Blair on the Tories - who were dragged kicking and screaming towards the centre after their lurch to the right as they realised it was the only way to defeat New Labour - and it's clear that Labour's electoral successes would run dry naturally anyway once the Tories learnt their lessons and Blair was gone. Who knows how 2010 would have shaped up with Blair still in power. It's very rare for any party of government to increase vote share once in office as it is.

I'm sorry, but of all the things to attack Tony Blair for (and there are many) his electoral record really isn't one of them.

[marinello59]

I'm sorry, but of all the things to attack Tony Blair for (and there are many) his electoral record really isn't one of them.

Well said. Elections are won by occupying the centre ground, a lesson the SNP took on board despite managing to disguise their centre right policies as being left wing.

[The_Todd]

Perfect for those who would rather smugly congratulate themselves on being right whilst everybody else is wrong, a disaster for those who want a political party to actually achieve something. George Galloway has made a career out of that whilst achieving nothing. I can't say I'd be happy to see our party of opposition spend the next few years wallowing in righteous self indulgence whilst the Tories do what they want.

This is absolutely key. A Corbyn victory won't lead us to a socialist paradise, quite the opposite: it'll lead us to the worst of the Thatcher years. With the centre ground vacated by Labour the Tories will happy slowly shift rightwards knowing there's nobody to stop them until they either shift so far rightwards they end up in the same mess as Labour, or Labour remembers that electability actually matters.

My dad I'm afraid to say is a "Corbynista", he used to be on the executive of his local Labour Party but is now an SNP member. What confuses me is he thinks of me as one of the types who think "winning is more important than principle". Well, in a way he's right - because without winning what's the point? But also, let's not forget his new party also occupies that very centre ground New Labour did. He can tell me "The SNP are clearly to the left of Labour" all he likes, the SNP manifesto was the Labour Manifesto with a different colour. The actual policies they carry out are centrist (and in some cases, right-leaning). When challenged to name some redistributive policies or acts the SNP have actually got or carried out, the answer was "none". And my dad is no political slouch, he's been active politically his whole life but that question floored him.

New Labour achieved some good things, and did some things we'd all rather forget - but it would be remiss to just forget the good things they did and shout "IRAQ! WAR CRIMES!". Good things they never could have achieved without winning power in the first place. Those who say "we don't care about winning" when they back JC should remember those words in 2015 when the Tories gleefully campaign for a third term.

[The_Exile]

Corbyn confirmed as the new Labour leader, looks like he's about to be confirmed as winning in the first round of votes with over 50%, quite the landslide!

[lord bunberry]

Corbyn confirmed as the new Labour leader, looks like he's about to be confirmed as winning in the first round of votes with over 50%, quite the landslide!
59.5% he got.

[Golden Bear]

And now we have it.

It's to be the Tom and Jerry show.

[Betty Boop]

Over the moon ! What a victory !

[marinello59]

Over the moon ! What a victory !

David Cameron would agree with you. :greengrin

[DaveF]

He's fairly blabbering on in his acceptance speech.

[Beefster]

Presumably all the SNP supporters who claimed they be rushing back to Labour 'if only they moved to the left" (which, given the SNP are more right than Miliband's Labour ever were, is ironic) will be over the moon?

[hibsbollah]

I've seen the argument made a few times that elections are always won by occupying the centre ground. This is incorrect, elections are won by amassing more electoral seats than the other guy or guys, and in the UK, getting as close as possible to the magic number of 325 seats. Whether these seats are gained from the Tories in swing marginals in Essex, in Scotland from the SNP, or in the North of England where a million voters deserted Labour for UKIP or did nothing because the left was unrepresented as a political voice south of Berwick and East of Monmouth, seats are seats and none is more valuable than any other. That was the great lie of the Blair years, that catering to Mondeo man was somehow more important than anything else. I am delighted at todays result, and im very comfortable being told by those 'in the know' that a Corbyn victory in a UK general election is impossible. I imagine the same 'impossible!' 'cant possibly happen!' cries could be heard back at the beginning of the campaign, when Corbyn was the 200/1 outsider.

[RyeSloan]

I've seen the argument made a few times that elections are always won by occupying the centre ground. This is incorrect, elections are won by amassing more electoral seats than the other guy or guys, and in the UK, getting as close as possible to the magic number of 325 seats. Whether these seats are gained from the Tories in swing marginals in Essex, in Scotland from the SNP, or in the North of England where a million voters deserted Labour for UKIP or did nothing because the left was unrepresented as a political voice south of Berwick and East of Monmouth, seats are seats and none is more valuable than any other. That was the great lie of the Blair years, that catering to Mondeo man was somehow more important than anything else. I am delighted at todays result, and im very comfortable being told by those 'in the know' that a Corbyn victory in a UK general election is impossible. I imagine the same 'impossible!' 'cant possibly happen!' cries could be heard back at the beginning of the campaign, when Corbyn was the 200/1 outsider.

But how do you amass more political seats than the rest? By appealing to the broadest audience I assume...thats what mondeo man and new labour was designed to do and it worked a treat. Appealing to only a core base support won't get you the 325 I would suggest.

Interesting times ahead now the Labour (or at least the hundreds of thousands that paid £3 for the privilege! To take part in the panto) have voted for a leader very few of its senior members or MPs every wanted. All a bit strange if you ask me!

[blaikie]

Resignation by Christmas?

He surely can't lead a party when they are lining up in the background to undermine him!

It's going to be intresting to watch.

[Colr]

But how do you amass more political seats than the rest? By appealing to the broadest audience I assume...thats what mondeo man and new labour was designed to do and it worked a treat. Appealing to only a core base support won't get you the 325 I would suggest.

Interesting times ahead now the Labour (or at least the hundreds of thousands that paid £3 for the privilege! To take part in the panto) have voted for a leader very few of its senior members or MPs every wanted. All a bit strange if you ask me!

I paid my £3. I expect to be purged very shortly!

[Northernhibee]

Presumably all the SNP supporters who claimed they be rushing back to Labour 'if only they moved to the left" (which, given the SNP are more right than Miliband's Labour ever were, is ironic) will be over the moon?

:top marks

I'm looking forward to left wing politics - real left wing politics to be put on the menu. Once Corbyn deals with the Blairites I think we're going to see a landslide like when under Blair.

[bigwheel]

:top marks

I'm looking forward to left wing politics - real left wing politics to be put on the menu. Once Corbyn deals with the Blairites I think we're going to see a landslide like when under Blair.

Dreams are good, but Blair got his landslide as he appealed to both left and centre voters. He secured the all important "middle england" vote. Corbin will never do that. He may though stir the left in a way that's not happened in living memory.

I agree though it will be a genuinely interesting political landscape. And if he got to an Election vs say Osborne - it would be great TV. Corbyn's principles are hard not to admire. His ability to bring the party behind him will be his biggest test - I wouldn't be sure he will ever lead Labour into a General Election - long way to go...

His victory should create an engagement in politics across the UK, in a way thats not happened for decades...interesting times.

[lord bunberry]

But how do you amass more political seats than the rest? By appealing to the broadest audience I assume...thats what mondeo man and new labour was designed to do and it worked a treat. Appealing to only a core base support won't get you the 325 I would suggest.

Interesting times ahead now the Labour (or at least the hundreds of thousands that paid £3 for the privilege! To take part in the panto) have voted for a leader very few of its senior members or MPs every wanted. All a bit strange if you ask me!
This country is crying out for a left wing alternative, Corbyns victory(stunning victory) shows that the people of this country have had enough of the usual main stream political speak and are ready for something different.

[Colr]

This country is crying out for a left wing alternative, Corbyns victory(stunning victory) shows that the people of this country have had enough of the usual main stream political speak and are ready for something different.

Not sure it shows that but after the surge in SNP nothing would surprise me

[lord bunberry]

Presumably all the SNP supporters who claimed they be rushing back to Labour 'if only they moved to the left" (which, given the SNP are more right than Miliband's Labour ever were, is ironic) will be over the moon?
How many people did that include? Are you saying that a large part of the Scottish electorate voted SNP because they couldn't understand the difference between the 2 party's policies? You seem to be in a one man crusade to belittle the Scottish electorate in turn making yourself look like some sort of sage in the process.

[The_Todd]

:top marks

I'm looking forward to left wing politics - real left wing politics to be put on the menu. Once Corbyn deals with the Blairites I think we're going to see a landslide like when under Blair.

"Deals with" the Blairites? What does this even mean? Should anyone who is even vaguely "Blairite" expect a call from Labour HQ telling them their membership has been cancelled?

[Pretty Boy]

It will be interesting to see how this goes. It will be by far and away the biggest shake up of the Labour Party since the revolution of Brown, Mandelson and Blair brought about New Labour.

If he succeeds then it will be the biggest political shift in this country since 1979 and arguably one of the biggest ever. If he flops then it proves beyond doubt that there is no desire for the left in modern British politics.

[grunt]

... Corbyns victory(stunning victory) shows that the people of this country have had enough of the usual main stream political speak and are ready for something different.I don't usually post in political threads, but I'm struggling to see how the Labour party's election of Corbyn as leader says anything about what the people of this country think? The people of this country didn't vote for him?

[lord bunberry]

I don't usually post in political threads, but I'm struggling to see how the Labour party's election of Corbyn as leader says anything about what the people of this country think? The people of this country didn't vote for him?
Half a million people voted in the election, granted they were all Labour Party members, but the fact that they trebled their membership says to me that there's an audience for for what the man is proposing. I've never voted Labour in my life and probably never will, but I like what this man has to say. I'm fed up with bankers and the markets deciding whether people can put food on their table. It's time for change.

[Beefster]

How many people did that include? Are you saying that a large part of the Scottish electorate voted SNP because they couldn't understand the difference between the 2 party's policies? You seem to be in a one man crusade to belittle the Scottish electorate in turn making yourself look like some sort of sage in the process.

I've really no idea what you're talking about but a one man crusade to do anything sounds good to me.

[Colr]

Half a million people voted in the election, granted they were all Labour Party members, but the fact that they trebled their membership says to me that there's an audience for for what the man is proposing. I've never voted Labour in my life and probably never will, but I like what this man has to say. I'm fed up with bankers and the markets deciding whether people can put food on their table. It's time for change.

He's got a big following in the young. I expect him to want free university tuition ( hopefully not by trashing the FE sector like the SNP did) and to lower the voting age ( which I agree with to balance the boomers influence).

[Hibs Class]

How many people did that include? Are you saying that a large part of the Scottish electorate voted SNP because they couldn't understand the difference between the 2 party's policies? You seem to be in a one man crusade to belittle the Scottish electorate in turn making yourself look like some sort of sage in the process.

I thought it was accepted that a large part of the Scottish electorate voted SNP because they didn't like the idea of Cameron's tories or Blair legacy labour. That was partly how SNP positioned themselves. It's hardly belittling the electorate by stating the obvious.

[fulshie]

So Jeremy Corbyn is the new Labour leader. I really don't know where this will take the Labour Party! I can only make assumptions and here's my first. I strongly assume that middle England (the true battlefield in general elections) will reject JC policies. My 2nd assumption is that the Scottish Labour will get a few seats back in Scotland but, that wont change the outcome of a General Election which leads me to my 3rd assumption which is, I assume the tories will get re-elected. I'm a left winger so therefore hope all goes well for JC.

[grunt]

Half a million people voted in the election, granted they were all Labour Party members, but the fact that they trebled their membership says to me that there's an audience for for what the man is proposing. I've never voted Labour in my life and probably never will, but I like what this man has to say. I'm fed up with bankers and the markets deciding whether people can put food on their table. It's time for change.I'm sorry but I can't see how you can extrapolate these views from the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Time will tell, I guess.

[lord bunberry]

I thought it was accepted that a large part of the Scottish electorate voted SNP because they didn't like the idea of Cameron's tories or Blair legacy labour. That was partly how SNP positioned themselves. It's hardly belittling the electorate by stating the obvious.
It's belittling the electorate to suggest that people voted SNP because the somehow believed the were something they weren't. Like it or not the SNP offered a serious alternative to the usual 2 party system and people latched on that with their eyes open. There seems to be a belief that the SNP somehow tracked people into believing they were a party of the people. They didn't, the SNP are a party of the people and if Corbyn gets it right Labour will be the same.

[lord bunberry]

I'm sorry but I can't see how you can extrapolate these views from the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Time will tell, I guess.
I suppose everyone is going to have a different take on his election today. You say you can't see how I've come to my conclusions, but what would your take be on a hard left candidate winning the vote?

[Mibbes Aye]

It's belittling the electorate to suggest that people voted SNP because the somehow believed the were something they weren't. Like it or not the SNP offered a serious alternative to the usual 2 party system and people latched on that with their eyes open. There seems to be a belief that the SNP somehow tracked people into believing they were a party of the people. They didn't, the SNP are a party of the people and if Corbyn gets it right Labour will be the same.

:faf:

Council tax freeze.

SNP flagship policy.

First thing in their manifesto.

Benefits the richest households three times more than the poorest.

And does **** all for the very poorest as they don't pay council tax, so public money that could be helping them is subsidising the richest.

I've posted this however many times and I've never seen any Nat defend it. Why not?

They're not a party of the people, or a party of social justice, if that's what they do in government.

Pretending they are just makes you look ludicrous.

[lord bunberry]

:faf:

Council tax freeze.

SNP flagship policy.

First thing in their manifesto.

Benefits the richest households three times more than the poorest.

And does **** all for the very poorest as they don't pay council tax, so public money that could be helping them is subsidising the richest.

I've posted this however many times and I've never seen any Nat defend it. Why not?

They're not a party of the people, or a party of social justice, if that's what they do in government.

Pretending they are just makes you look ludicrous.
I agree that the council tax freeze isn't a progressive policy, but I don't know anyone who didn't welcome its introduction. The SNP proposed a local income tax whilst in minority government, but dropped it due to the fact that it would have been voted down. The SNP are a party of the people, that's why they wiped the floor with every other party in the last election, unless you think like an earlier poster that the SNP somehow managed to present a right of centre manifesto but convince millions that they were the party of the left.

[Mibbes Aye]

I agree that the council tax freeze isn't a progressive policy, but I don't know anyone who didn't welcome its introduction. The SNP proposed a local income tax whilst in minority government, but dropped it due to the fact that it would have been voted down. The SNP are a party of the people, that's why they wiped the floor with every other party in the last election, unless you think like an earlier poster that the SNP somehow managed to present a right of centre manifesto but convince millions that they were the party of the left.

And that's the point.

How can you say they are a party of the people when the flagship policy benefits the rich over the poor?

It's indefensible hypocrisy, surely?

[Mibbes Aye]

I agree that the council tax freeze isn't a progressive policy, but I don't know anyone who didn't welcome its introduction. The SNP proposed a local income tax whilst in minority government, but dropped it due to the fact that it would have been voted down. The SNP are a party of the people, that's why they wiped the floor with every other party in the last election, unless you think like an earlier poster that the SNP somehow managed to present a right of centre manifesto but convince millions that they were the party of the left.

Did you ask widely? Did you consider the implications?

How many people do you know who have lost council services over the last few years?

You might not personally but rest assured, so many have.

They tend to be the older, frailer, more vulnerable.

Next time you try and seek help for a frail or vulnerable relative from your local council, and it's them who have the duty to respond, bear in mind your previous posts.

If you don't have the worry or concern about a family member who might need help then good for you. It will be a rude awakening when you do though.

[RyeSloan]

And that's the point. How can you say they are a party of the people when the flagship policy benefits the rich over the poor? It's indefensible hypocrisy, surely?

While I get your point I would suggest the policy benefits many more people than just the 'rich'.

I find it odd that every policy now has to be defined by the extremes of the rich and the poor...is there no space for policies that have a direct impact on those in the middle as well?

[lord bunberry]

Did you ask widely? Did you consider the implications?

How many people do you know who have lost council services over the last few years?

You might not personally but rest assured, so many have.

They tend to be the older, frailer, more vulnerable.

Next time you try and seek help for a frail or vulnerable relative from your local council, and it's them who have the duty to respond, bear in mind your previous posts.

If you don't have the worry or concern about a family member who might need help then good for you. It will be a rude awakening when you do though.
I gauge opinion from the people I speak to through my work and most people were relieved to hear about the council tax freeze. As for your 2nd point my father comes under the category you describe and I've been very much impressed by the way the council and the nhs has combined to meet his needs. The only thing I would say about these services is that they're all contracted out to companies who's aim is to make a profit(you'll notice I didn't say sole aim as I think that's unfair) which brings us back to JC and his vision for the country.

[Mibbes Aye]

While I get your point I would suggest the policy benefits many more people than just the 'rich'.

I find it odd that every policy now has to be defined by the extremes of the rich and the poor...is there no space for policies that have a direct impact on those in the middle as well?

Think you've nailed the point. It was and is a policy that has buy-in because it benefits many, the 'middle' basically, and in fairness, I've acknowledged that before. It's a bribe for folk at a level whose reliance on local government services is basic

The hypocrisy is in how extremely it benefits the highest council tax payers over the lowest council tax payers, and how the poorest don't benefit at all because they are too poor to pay council tax.

That is the polar opposite of progressive, or being 'of the people'.

[lord bunberry]

While I get your point I would suggest the policy benefits many more people than just the 'rich'.

I find it odd that every policy now has to be defined by the extremes of the rich and the poor...is there no space for policies that have a direct impact on those in the middle as well?
Of course it does, it helped hard working families who had only seen a year on year increase in council tax. A new tax is needed but for now I'll settle for the freeze.

[lord bunberry]

Think you've nailed the point. It was and is a policy that has buy-in because it benefits many, the 'middle' basically, and in fairness, I've acknowledged that before. It's a bribe for folk at a level whose reliance on local government services is basic

The hypocrisy is in how extremely it benefits the highest council tax payers over the lowest council tax payers, and how the poorest don't benefit at all because they are too poor to pay council tax.

That is the polar opposite of progressive, or being 'of the people'.
Come on now your just acting like a politician now:greengrin the council tax freeze is widely acknowledged as being un progressive but it was an easy thing to do at the time to take some of the pressure off hard working families. Clearly what we need is a proper tax based on ability to pay, but successive governments have failed to come up viable alternative.

[Mibbes Aye]

I gauge opinion from the people I speak to through my work and most people were relieved to hear about the council tax freeze. As for your 2nd point my father comes under the category you describe and I've been very much impressed by the way the council and the nhs has combined to meet his needs. The only thing I would say about these services is that they're all contracted out to companies who's aim is to make a profit(you'll notice I didn't say sole aim as I think that's unfair) which brings us back to JC and his vision for the country.

So, you've said you people you talked to were positive about the freeze. Sounds like a few as well.

But you thought it wasn't progressive, you said that. Did you argue the point with them?

If you did, fair play, what case did you make?

If you didn't, why not? Did you just go along with them? What did you say to them?

[Mibbes Aye]

Come on now your just acting like a politician now:greengrin the council tax freeze is widely acknowledged as being un progressive but it was an easy thing to do at the time to take some of the pressure off hard working families. Clearly what we need is a proper tax based on ability to pay, but successive governments have failed to come up viable alternative.

Widely?

Really?

I've not seen it widely acknowledged on here, let alone more widely.

Happy to be pointed in the right direction, but from memory it wasn't a popular topic for Yessers during the referendum.

Still waiting on an economic case for the last however many years :I'm waiti

[lord bunberry]

So, you've said you people you talked to were positive about the freeze. Sounds like a few as well.

But you thought it wasn't progressive, you said that. Did you argue the point with them?

If you did, fair play, what case did you make?

If you didn't, why not? Did you just go along with them? What did you say to them?
No I didn't argue the point with them as I was in the same boat as them looking for a break from our politicians at a time when times were difficult. When someone tells you that your tax bill is going to be frozen the natural reaction is to be welcoming of that. It was in the intervening months that people began raising the point of it not being a progressive policy and if I'm being honest I don't know why the SNP government at holyrood hasn't come up with a proper progressive alternative to the council tax, I think they've had their minds on other things :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

Widely?

Really?

I've not seen it widely acknowledged on here, let alone more widely.

Happy to be pointed in the right direction, but from memory it wasn't a popular topic for Yessers during the referendum.

Still waiting on an economic case for the last however many years :I'm waiti
I think you're being quie harsh there! Most of the posts I've seen on the topic have acknowledged the fact that it's not a progressive tax. Finding an alternative within the Westminster budget constraints is going to be a challenge for any government and probably a very expensive one to implement.

[grunt]

So, you've said you people you talked to were positive about the freeze. Sounds like a few as well.

I thought we were talking about the Labour leadership election.

[Beefster]

It's belittling the electorate to suggest that people voted SNP because the somehow believed the were something they weren't. Like it or not the SNP offered a serious alternative to the usual 2 party system and people latched on that with their eyes open. There seems to be a belief that the SNP somehow tracked people into believing they were a party of the people. They didn't, the SNP are a party of the people and if Corbyn gets it right Labour will be the same.

I think you've missed my point completely because I don't buy into meaningless terms like 'party of the people'. Using that logic, the Torie are a 'party of the people' because 'the people' put them into power.

It's a fact that the SNP have successfully spun themselves as a more left-wing version of Labour when, in reality, they're further to the right than Labour have been since 2010.

[Colr]

I think you've missed my point completely because I don't buy into meaningless terms like 'party of the people'. Using that logic, the Torie are a 'party of the people' because 'the people' put them into power.

It's a fact that the SNP have successfully spun themselves as a more left-wing version of Labour when, in reality, they're further to the right than Labour have been since 2010.

In what way are they to the right?

[fulshie]

:faf:

Council tax freeze.

SNP flagship policy.

First thing in their manifesto.

Benefits the richest households three times more than the poorest.

And does **** all for the very poorest as they don't pay council tax, so public money that could be helping them is subsidising the richest.

I've posted this however many times and I've never seen any Nat defend it. Why not?

They're not a party of the people, or a party of social justice, if that's what they do in government.

Pretending they are just makes you look ludicrous.The council tax freeze was brought in when the SNP only had a majority of 1 seat. This means other party members would've had to vote it through parliament too. It was also brought in at a time when our economy was starting to hit a low point (credit crunch) and this is why it was welcomed. I do get your point though, the less we pay the less goes into local services and maybe its time for the freeze to be lifted.

[Beefster]

In what way are they to the right?

Policies that help the middle and upper classes as much as those in genuine need (e.g., free tuition, prescriptions, council tax), a border-line authoritarian need to centralise, sucking up to the likes or Souter and Murdoch, corporation tax, the privatisation of the ferry service and I haven't seen anything from the SNP that went further than Labour on the likes of redistribution of wealth or living wage (in fact, IIRC, the Scottish Government have refused to pay the living wage on occasion).

I'm not saying that they're right-wing or that all of these things are 'bad'. I'm challenging the myth that they're more left-wing that even Miliband's Labour (never mind the new lot).

[Moulin Yarns]

:faf:

Council tax freeze.

SNP flagship policy.

First thing in their manifesto.

Benefits the richest households three times more than the poorest.

And does **** all for the very poorest as they don't pay council tax, so public money that could be helping them is subsidising the richest.

I've posted this however many times and I've never seen any Nat defend it. Why not?

They're not a party of the people, or a party of social justice, if that's what they do in government.

Pretending they are just makes you look ludicrous.

Let's look at the Council tax freeze another way, shall we?

Each of the links below referes to Council Tax freezes across the United Kingdom that are not the responsibility of the SNP, but were put in place by either Labour or the Con/LibDem coalition. How will you blame the SNP for these?

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2015/03/council-tax-freeze-takes-%C2%A328bn-out-budgets-cipfa-finds

The Council Tax freeze impacts on Local Government Services more than householders that pay the tax.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11335838/Council-tax-to-rise-in-Tory-shires-despite-freeze-ordered-by-ministers.html


esidents should “demand an explanation” if councils refused the freeze

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/04/reasons-to-be-tory-2-the-council-tax-freeze.html


Under Labour, it rose by 109 per cent. Under the Coalition, it has gone up by three per cent – a fall of 11 per cent in real terms. (These are Band D figures.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10725416/One-in-four-Tory-councils-defy-David-Camerons-tax-freeze.html


Ministers have insisted that local authorities have a duty to cap council tax bills in order to help people with the cost of living. But many council leaders say they have no choice but to increase levies in order to meet the mounting costs of providing services such as elderly care.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15145083


A similar pledge was included in the coalition agreement and resulted in all local authorities in England freezing or reducing their council tax bills in 2011-12.

http://www.labourinenfield.org.uk/council_tax_freeze_petition


Your Labour council has frozen Council Tax every year it has been in power - as promised in the 2010 Election Manifesto.


A Land Valuation Tax, based on rent values would be the logical replacement of Council Tax


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/392c33a6-211f-11e3-8aff-00144feab7de.html#axzz3lbye1eoK

[Colr]

Policies that help the middle and upper classes as much as those in genuine need (e.g., free tuition, prescriptions, council tax), a border-line authoritarian need to centralise, sucking up to the likes or Souter and Murdoch, corporation tax, the privatisation of the ferry service and I haven't seen anything from the SNP that went further than Labour on the likes of redistribution of wealth or living wage (in fact, IIRC, the Scottish Government have refused to pay the living wage on occasion).

I'm not saying that they're right-wing or that all of these things are 'bad'. I'm challenging the myth that they're more left-wing that even Miliband's Labour (never mind the new lot).

Centralisation and the policies on tuition fees and prescription are left wing centrally planned approaches. There's nothing right wing about them.

[Jack]

It's difficult to have a go at the SNP for being unprogressive/progressive when the Scottish Government is little more than a spending department of the UK government.

Anyway back to Corbyn. I think he and his team have had a good look at how the SNP have achieved what they have and followed.

One of the early things I noticed with the SNP was their willingness to listen and take policies forward as a collaboration. Indeed in some areas projects handed over to those on the front line who would eventually implement those policies.

An observation of Labour was the dictatorial way they went about implementing policy.

This was seen again during this election, the other candidates and big guns being rolled out telling members what to do and in a referendum type way threatening doom and gloom.

In comparison most of the time I saw Corbyn he was patiently listening to what people had to say before he spoke and replied to that rather than to some prescriptive text someone else had prepared.

[Glory Lurker]

Getting back to the Corbyn fella :wink:

It will be very interesting how things bed in. There needn't necessarily be a coup but there is obviously going to be a lot of tension and intrigue in the coming months. Ultimately, though, i don't think a Corbyn-led Labour has a chance of winning the next general election. There are obvious parallels with 1983, and the left was more organised and active than it is now.

[Pretty Boy]

Getting back to the Corbyn fella :wink:

It will be very interesting how things bed in. There needn't necessarily be a coup but there is obviously going to be a lot of tension and intrigue in the coming months. Ultimately, though, i don't think a Corbyn-led Labour has a chance of winning the next general election. There are obvious parallels with 1983, and the left was more organised and active than it is now.

I agree it will be an interesting watch to see how it beds in. It's difficult to see how he can succeed though as the press will be all over him, misrepresenting him and hounding him from the start. It's happened to 3 or 4 party leaders in recent times and none have really got past it.

For me the resignations that poured in after the result are in themselves no bad thing. Looking at the dismal performance of the other 3 candidates it's a pretty clear indication that the wider membership have rejected the Blairities and Brownites of the past couple of decades who were the choice of the parliamentary party. Of course the shady background manoeuvres that will already be taking place to ensure Corbyn fails are another matter.

[ronaldo7]

Great result for Corbyn, let's hope he can bring his party together after the election. Interesting times ahead on the future of Trident, and whether he works alongside the SNP on reforming the Lords.

No more Labour Lords Jeremy:wink:

[HiBremian]

Getting back to the Corbyn fella :wink:

It will be very interesting how things bed in. There needn't necessarily be a coup but there is obviously going to be a lot of tension and intrigue in the coming months. Ultimately, though, i don't think a Corbyn-led Labour has a chance of winning the next general election. There are obvious parallels with 1983, and the left was more organised and active than it is now.

I'm interested to know why so many people are desperate to compare now with 1983, yet fail to compare Corbyn with Clement Attlee, an equally unasumming character who became leader by chance in 1935, was a poor public speaker (unlike Foot), and was constantly being intrigued against by fellow Labour MPs, including Peter Mandleson's grandad even after he had one the 1945 election. And his programme of nationalisation and deficit spending was way beyond anything Corbyn now talks about. Of course there was one important difference between Attlee and Foot's experience - the latter suffered a disastrous split from the right when the Gang of Four formed the SDP.

[Colr]

I'm interested to know why so many people are desperate to compare now with 1983, yet fail to compare Corbyn with Clement Attlee, an equally unasumming character who became leader by chance in 1935, was a poor public speaker (unlike Foot), and was constantly being intrigued against by fellow Labour MPs, including Peter Mandleson's grandad even after he had one the 1945 election. And his programme of nationalisation and deficit spending was way beyond anything Corbyn now talks about. Of course there was one important difference between Attlee and Foot's experience - the latter suffered a disastrous split from the right when the Gang of Four formed the SDP.

And Atlee's government was removed after one term by a Conservative one that lasted 3 terms and in 1955 secured more than 50% of the vote in Scotland.

[Glory Lurker]

I'm interested to know why so many people are desperate to compare now with 1983, yet fail to compare Corbyn with Clement Attlee, an equally unasumming character who became leader by chance in 1935, was a poor public speaker (unlike Foot), and was constantly being intrigued against by fellow Labour MPs, including Peter Mandleson's grandad even after he had one the 1945 election. And his programme of nationalisation and deficit spending was way beyond anything Corbyn now talks about. Of course there was one important difference between Attlee and Foot's experience - the latter suffered a disastrous split from the right when the Gang of Four formed the SDP.

That's a fair point. I think though, although Atlee sought more radical change he did so when the electorate was galvanised by the prospect of it happening. Corbyn is seeking less, but the circumstances are totally different today and the electorate is - probably imho - not nearly as open to change. He's less radical but so are the people, significantly so.

None of this is why I compared to 1983. That was just me being lazy and not thinking about Atlee!

[HiBremian]

That's a fair point. I think though, although Atlee sought more radical change he did so when the electorate was galvanised by the prospect of it happening. Corbyn is seeking less, but the circumstances are totally different today and the electorate is - probably imho - not nearly as open to change. He's less radical but so are the people, significantly so.

None of this is why I compared to 1983. That was just me being lazy and not thinking about Atlee!

Ye, could be right about the electorate, but stranger things have happened...

[grunt]

It seems that Corbyn wants to leave the EU. Did he mention this when standing for Labour leadership?
Not according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34218294

[HiBremian]

It seems that Corbyn wants to leave the EU. Did he mention this when standing for Labour leadership?

He's neither a strong pro- or anti-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/what-does-jeremy-corbyn-think

[grunt]

He's neither a strong pro- or anti-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/what-does-jeremy-corbyn-think (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/what-does-jeremy-corbyn-think[/QUOTE)

Thank you for this link. It seems that Umunna has resigned because he doesn't agree with Corbyn's views on Europe.
I rather liked Umunna.

[HiBremian]

[/URL]

Thank you for this link. It seems that Umunna has resigned because he doesn't agree with Corbyn's views on Europe.
I rather liked Umunna.

It's interesting looking on at the UK "Europe debate" from over here in Germany. There's a euro-sceptic right-wing party here of course, the AfD, but as AFAIK they only call for getting out of the euro, not the EU. But the Europe debate here does cover some issues raised by Corbyn, with the Greens, left SPD and Die Linke wanting a Europe more solidarity-oriented. But the difference is they want to stay in the EU to try to build it. The UK debate seems very quickly to become an in-out one, a bit like the denial of Devo Max in last year's indyref. Corbyn would probably do well to do a link-up with fellow lefties around Europe if he wants to stress his pro-EU credentials, without cosying up to the pro-EU tories as per Scottish Labour last year.

[ronaldo7]

It's interesting looking on at the UK "Europe debate" from over here in Germany. There's a euro-sceptic right-wing party here of course, the AfD, but as AFAIK they only call for getting out of the euro, not the EU. But the Europe debate here does cover some issues raised by Corbyn, with the Greens, left SPD and Die Linke wanting a Europe more solidarity-oriented. But the difference is they want to stay in the EU to try to build it. The UK debate seems very quickly to become an in-out one, a bit like the denial of Devo Max in last year's indyref. Corbyn would probably do well to do a link-up with fellow lefties around Europe if he wants to stress his pro-EU credentials, without cosying up to the pro-EU tories as per Scottish Labour last year.

I've seen on Twitter that Corbyn wants to hold a conference in London of all the anti austerity campaigns from across Europe. It would be a good idea to hold out the hand of friendship to the SNP.

The shadow cabinet is slowly coming together.

Burnham to Home
Heidi Alexander to Health
Lord Falconer to Justice
Hillary Benn to Foreign

[HiBremian]

I've seen on Twitter that Corbyn wants to hold a conference in London of all the anti austerity campaigns from across Europe. It would be a good idea to hold out the hand of friendship to the SNP.

The shadow cabinet is slowly coming together.

Burnham to Home
Heidi Alexander to Health
Lord Falconer to Justice
Hillary Benn to Foreign

Thanks for that info - was just looking around the net for any news :thumbsup:

[The_Todd]

It's difficult to have a go at the SNP for being unprogressive/progressive when the Scottish Government is little more than a spending department of the UK government.

Anyway back to Corbyn. I think he and his team have had a good look at how the SNP have achieved what they have and followed.

One of the early things I noticed with the SNP was their willingness to listen and take policies forward as a collaboration. Indeed in some areas projects handed over to those on the front line who would eventually implement those policies.

An observation of Labour was the dictatorial way they went about implementing policy.

This was seen again during this election, the other candidates and big guns being rolled out telling members what to do and in a referendum type way threatening doom and gloom.

In comparison most of the time I saw Corbyn he was patiently listening to what people had to say before he spoke and replied to that rather than to some prescriptive text someone else had prepared.

That's not the SNP I recognise. Sorry, I don't want to be rude but it's not.

The SNP are the most centralising party I think I've seen in action. Not one SNP MP, MSP or councillor goes off message - ever. When a big event happens you will notice one SNP MP Tweets something and within minutes another has Tweeted something with the wording slightly tweaked. Then another, maybe this time same words but different order.

Don't get me wrong, the SNP is a formidable campaigning machine, and it's really quite impressive to the point where the all the other parties have a lot to learn from their campaigning systems but saying that SNP people don't stick to some prescripted text is bang wrong. It's the only thing they do.

And as for being a spending department of the UK Government, they're a "spending department" with powers to raise taxes, and the only changes to taxes they've made is to freeze them for 8 years to benefit the middle classes and wealthiest home owners. I know in a devolved government their hands are tied to an extent, but they do have powers but it's much easier (and politically useful to their main aim) to not do it and blame Westminster (or "Wastemonster" as they call it).

[marinello59]

The SNP are the most centralising party I think I've seen in action. Not one SNP MP, MSP or councillor goes off message - ever. When a big event happens you will notice one SNP MP Tweets something and within minutes another has Tweeted something with the wording slightly tweaked. Then another, maybe this time same words but different order.

.

The SNP party rules for MP's are, " any MP must accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".

[DaveF]

The SNP party rules for MP's are, " any MP must accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".

Seems pretty clear to me and anyone aspiring to be an MP. Therefore, if you don't agree, don't join.

[Just Alf]

The SNP party rules for MP's are, " any MP must accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".


Seems pretty clear to me and anyone aspiring to be an MP. Therefore, if you don't agree, don't join.

I'm a half full glass type of guy so I guess I tend to always see the positive (or I'm too naive!)

I see it as a political party is made up of all sorts with broadly similar views (not all though)... so at conference etc you argue your stance and once the collective vote/agree on the Party line everyone needs to follow suit (until the next time), I see that as democracy at work?

In a way is that not what Corbyn has done? Joined a party (or stayed in it) that's not wholly representative of his views but argued his ground?.... the party as a whole don't tend to agree with him on Trident, Unification of Ireland and the transfer of power towards Argentina re the Falklands (or at least i don't think the party does).

As I say, maybe that glass is too full :agree:

[marinello59]

Seems pretty clear to me and anyone aspiring to be an MP. Therefore, if you don't agree, don't join.

Collective cabinet responsibility is one thing, allowing no public debate amongst a large group of back bench MPs is another. I guess we will see no maverick SNP MPs providing some entertainment over the next few years. Boring gits.:greengrin

[marinello59]

In a way is that not what Corbyn has done? Joined a party (or stayed in it) that's not wholly representative of his views but argued his ground?.... the party as a whole don't tend to agree with him on Trident, Unification of Ireland and the transfer of power towards Argentina re the Falklands (or at least i don't think the party does).



He has criticised decisions taken by his own party outside of conference though hasn't he? I think I read somewhere that he had voted against the Party leadership in Parliament on multiple occasions,I assume he gave reasons as to why. Would that contravene SNP party rules? I reckon it might.

[Just Alf]

He has criticised decisions taken by his own party outside of conference though hasn't he? I think I read somewhere that he had voted against the Party leadership in Parliament on multiple occasions,I assume he gave reasons as to why. Would that contravene SNP party rules? I reckon it might.

fair dos.... I guess it would be.

[lord bunberry]

He has criticised decisions taken by his own party outside of conference though hasn't he? I think I read somewhere that he had voted against the Party leadership in Parliament on multiple occasions,I assume he gave reasons as to why. Would that contravene SNP party rules? I reckon it might.
I'm sure I read that he's voted against his own party over 500 times.

[hibsbollah]

any chance we could stop seeing every political issue on here through a SNP lens?

The British print media are falling over themselves to be as insulting and dismissive of Corbyn as possible. That includes the Guardian and The Independent (the Guardian has managed to attack him on three separate issues on one page today(Chancellor appointment, lack of women in his cabinet, lack of a press strategy), and judging by the newsstands over the weekend the devil himself had been appointed Labour leader.

There's less hyperbole and propaganda in the Peoples Daily than in the British press.

[steakbake]

any chance we could stop seeing every political issue on here through a SNP lens?

The British print media are falling over themselves to be as insulting and dismissive of Corbyn as possible. That includes the Guardian and The Independent (the Guardian has managed to attack him on three separate issues on one page today(Chancellor appointment, lack of women in his cabinet, lack of a press strategy), and judging by the newsstands over the weekend the devil himself had been appointed Labour leader.

There's less hyperbole and propaganda in the Peoples Daily than in the British press.

Or find really tenuous ways to attack the SNP.

Corbyn will not be given a chance by the UK media. He's an outsider, he threatens their comfortable familiarity within the status quo. The kind of Britain Corbyn envisages is so far beyond their concept of where the power ought to be that they see him as a threat. Hence the increasingly authoritarian David Cameron used such disgraceful language as calling him a "threat to national security".

To bring it back to an SNP focus (and therefore wildly off topic), I'd be interested what Labour folks feel about seeing out and out, unsubstantiated attacks from the media - including the slightly sneering BBC - on their new leader. Not so easy to get a fair hearing to push through any ideas which change the established order the media have become so entrenched in, is it?

[Colr]

I'm sure I read that he's voted against his own party over 500 times.

Should pose no problem for his whips, then.

[Pretty Boy]

Or find really tenuous ways to attack the SNP.

Corbyn will not be given a chance by the UK media. He's an outsider, he threatens their comfortable familiarity within the status quo. The kind of Britain Corbyn envisages is so far beyond their concept of where the power ought to be that they see him as a threat. Hence the increasingly authoritarian David Cameron used such disgraceful language as calling him a "threat to national security".

To bring it back to an SNP focus (and therefore wildly off topic), I'd be interested what Labour folks feel about seeing out and out, unsubstantiated attacks from the media - including the slightly sneering BBC - on their new leader. Not so easy to get a fair hearing to push through any ideas which change the established order the media have become so entrenched in, is it?

Your last paragraph is key for me. Whilst I'm sceptical of Corbyns appeal to large swathes of the electorate anyway, the media will kill him and it will be nigh on impossible for him to get his message across.

I alluded to that earlier. Menzies Campbell was hounded by the media for the crime of being elderly, Corbyn is a far bigger threat and more of. a curios than that and will be undermined and slaughtered at almost every turn.

Incidentally the most positive comment piece I have seen on Corbyn thus far appeared in the Daily Mail. Link below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3232255/And-finally-best-thing-Attlee.html

[marinello59]

Or find really tenuous ways to attack the SNP.

Corbyn will not be given a chance by the UK media. He's an outsider, he threatens their comfortable familiarity within the status quo. The kind of Britain Corbyn envisages is so far beyond their concept of where the power ought to be that they see him as a threat. Hence the increasingly authoritarian David Cameron used such disgraceful language as calling him a "threat to national security".

To bring it back to an SNP focus (and therefore wildly off topic), I'd be interested what Labour folks feel about seeing out and out, unsubstantiated attacks from the media - including the slightly sneering BBC - on their new leader. Not so easy to get a fair hearing to push through any ideas which change the established order the media have become so entrenched in, is it?

Murdoch's Sky as you would expect are giving him a torrid time but he could help himself a lot by talking on the BBC. Despite its perceived faults he would have a chance to show himself at his best. Not appearong with Andrew Marr was a mistake.

[ronaldo7]

Wee Ginger Dug.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

http://t.co/T2lYvjjMBN

[Northernhibee]

Wee Ginger Dug.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

http://t.co/T2lYvjjMBN

Corbyn's campaign team has already shown that they can stand up against negative media stories perfectly well and in fact used it to gain momentum and win the leadership election - he doesn't need patronising drivel as to how he needs to learn from nationalists in order to gain momentum - he already has it in bucket loads.

[Northernhibee]

To bring it back to an SNP focus (and therefore wildly off topic), I'd be interested what Labour folks feel about seeing out and out, unsubstantiated attacks from the media - including the slightly sneering BBC - on their new leader. Not so easy to get a fair hearing to push through any ideas which change the established order the media have become so entrenched in, is it?

I think we'll see younger voters ignore the mainstream media and will use social media and other platforms to bypass the media on this one; Corbyn is more to the left than any other party represented in Westminster and will win back a lot of voters lost during the years of Blairism and guess what? They have a distrust of the media and will see through it.

We're back to a fair more straightforward battle of left vs right.

[ronaldo7]

Corbyn's campaign team has already shown that they can stand up against negative media stories perfectly well and in fact used it to gain momentum and win the leadership election - he doesn't need patronising drivel as to how he needs to learn from nationalists in order to gain momentum - he already has it in bucket loads.

He's currently got some mo, however let's see what occurs when he hits the buffers on Trident, which he will.

[RyeSloan]

I think we'll see younger voters ignore the mainstream media and will use social media and other platforms to bypass the media on this one; Corbyn is more to the left than any other party represented in Westminster and will win back a lot of voters lost during the years of Blairism and guess what? They have a distrust of the media and will see through it. We're back to a fair more straightforward battle of left vs right.

Interesting to see if Corbynism will pull the debate (and to some degree policy) to the left or simply polarise.

Personally I don't see him lasting very long but stranger things have happened I suppose!

[Bristolhibby]

Your last paragraph is key for me. Whilst I'm sceptical of Corbyns appeal to large swathes of the electorate anyway, the media will kill him and it will be nigh on impossible for him to get his message across.

I alluded to that earlier. Menzies Campbell was hounded by the media for the crime of being elderly, Corbyn is a far bigger threat and more of. a curios than that and will be undermined and slaughtered at almost every turn.

Incidentally the most positive comment piece I have seen on Corbyn thus far appeared in the Daily Mail. Link below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3232255/And-finally-best-thing-Attlee.html

Now will be a true test of Scocial Media. It made major inroads during the Yes campaign in fighting off a hostile "old" media. This will be the same on steroids.

As usual the Daily Mash gets it spot on.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/man-who-just-got-elected-definitely-unelectable-20150914101940

J

[marinello59]

He's currently got some mo, however let's see what occurs when he hits the buffers on Trident, which he will.

His refusal to rule out campaigning to leave the EU is the bigger problem. It's the one area he seems less than willing to give straight answers on.

[PeeJay]

I think we'll see younger voters ignore the mainstream media and will use social media and other platforms to bypass the media on this one; Corbyn is more to the left than any other party represented in Westminster and will win back a lot of voters lost during the years of Blairism and guess what? a) They have a distrust of the media and will see through it.

b) We're back to a fair more straightforward battle of left vs right.

a) Maybe those on social-media simply fail to understand that criticism of political stances does not necessarily mean a particular media form is biased one way or the other, just because it doesn't agree with what you perhaps think/believe? Negative opinions on Corbyn can also be found in media outside the UK, as is the case here in Germany. Is this evidence of a pan-European conspiracy perhaps? Or maybe just seasoned journalists expressing reasonable concerns? Why do people seem to assume that anybody posting on an SM blog/site is full of well-balanced, informative and unbiased opinion with only the interests of truth at heart and everybody else is at it?

b) Reducing the battleground to a "fair" left or right as you do does not auger well for us in the centre I fear, nor for the country as a whole ... Seems to me that Labour has not learned the lessons of the 80s where the out-and-out, left-wing, ideological stance of the Party, coupled with the out-of-control trades union saw the Tories - and ultimately the electorate - shift away from the political centre to the right wing, a move that brought the country Thatcherism and all its consequences along with a dead-in-the-water Labour movement. A party only revived many, many years later by - ultimately - Blair and co from the centre ... is this the road Labour really wants to stumble down again? Swings to the far left or right are counterproductive - can Corbyn unify the whole country? Can't see it myself ...

[snooky]

"Alistair Darling urges Scottish Labour not to move to the left" - BBC website

Be a darling, Darling and just p.o.
Yesterday man.

[ronaldo7]

His refusal to rule out campaigning to leave the EU is the bigger problem. It's the one area he seems less than willing to give straight answers on.

He might be getting a steer from the TUC this afternoon. They're making noises to Cameron about not supporting a vote to remain in the EU unless he reigns in his anti union legislation.

Troubled waters ahead for the Tories.

[marinello59]

He might be getting a steer from the TUC this afternoon. They're making noises to Cameron about not supporting a vote to remain in the EU unless he reigns in his anti union legislation.

Troubled waters ahead for the Tories.

You might be right.
Looks like we may have a Labour movement again.

[steakbake]

Today we have sandwich-gate (Corbyn picks up some sandwiches which were for veterans).... and then we have anthem-gate (he did not sing to God Save the Queen).

The first is just laughable nonsense. The second is like something from Brave New World - here's someone who didn't participate in a GroupSing.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Today we have sandwich-gate (Corbyn picks up some sandwiches which were for veterans).... and then we have anthem-gate (he did not sing to God Save the Queen).

The first is just laughable nonsense. The second is like something from Brave New World - here's someone who didn't participate in a GroupSing.



neither he should if he doesn't want to, he's a self-proclaimed republican, unfortunately the SNP would like to keep the monarchy :(





still wont ever stop me voting for the nats though :)

[ronaldo7]

Today we have sandwich-gate (Corbyn picks up some sandwiches which were for veterans).... and then we have anthem-gate (he did not sing to God Save the Queen).

The first is just laughable nonsense. The second is like something from Brave New World - here's someone who didn't participate in a GroupSing.

At least he didn't boooooooooo:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

The press have got him in the stocks and the tomatoes are flying good style.

[Beefster]

neither he should if he doesn't want to, he's a self-proclaimed republican

I agree with that. If he's a republican, he shouldn't sing the anthem (I wouldn't either if I was ever in a position that it was being sung). However, he's about to join the privy council and kiss the Queen's hand so there's an overwhelming whiff of hypocrisy.

[Hibrandenburg]

I agree with that. If he's a republican, he shouldn't sing the anthem (I wouldn't either if I was ever in a position that it was being sung). However, he's about to join the privy council and kiss the Queen's hand so there's an overwhelming whiff of hypocrisy.

Change will only happen from the inside, the symbolic hand kiss is intended to filter out those who would want to change the status quo. Ask me in a year what I think of JC, I'll reserve judgement until then.

[DaveF]

I agree with that. If he's a republican, he shouldn't sing the anthem (I wouldn't either if I was ever in a position that it was being sung). However, he's about to join the privy council and kiss the Queen's hand so there's an overwhelming whiff of hypocrisy.

I thought MP's had to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch as well, hence the reason Sinn Fein MP's don't take their seats.

[marinello59]

I thought MP's had to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch as well, hence the reason Sinn Fein MP's don't take their seats.

They do but it's nowhere near as extensive as the PC oath.
Corbyn was in a no win situation with this one, in order to do his job properly as Leader of the Opposition he had to become a member of the PC. I don't see much wrong with him doing what he has to do in order to work within the existing system whilst working towards a better one.

[xyz23jc]

"Alistair Darling urges Scottish Labour not to move to the left" - BBC website

Be a darling, Darling and just p.o.
Yesterday man.

Isn't he now Lord Yesterday man! :greengrin

[marinello59]

Corbyn has done well at his first PMQ. Taking questions from the public via email actually worked really well.

[Beefster]

Corbyn has done well at his first PMQ. Taking questions from the public via email actually worked really well.

Clever tactic, it also means that Cameron can't just dismiss or bluster his way through the questions either.

[Pretty Boy]

Thought Corbyn was superb.

Wrong footed Cameron a bit and was forceful without playing up to the pantomime atmosphere. You can certainly tell he's had to speak in places where he simply has to get his point across quickly and be heard. He's a good public speaker.

Only thing lacking was any hard hitting follow up questions. I understand the desire to make it a bit more civilised but Cameron was let off a bit easy by simply quoting the government line and that was it. Unless Labour feel the more people actually hear the government line the less they will like it.

[Betty Boop]

Corbyn has done well at his first PMQ. Taking questions from the public via email actually worked really well.

Yea really enjoyed that for a change. Exciting times ahead !
:greengrin

[PatHead]

Today we have sandwich-gate (Corbyn picks up some sandwiches which were for veterans).... and then we have anthem-gate (he did not sing to God Save the Queen).

The first is just laughable nonsense. The second is like something from Brave New World - here's someone who didn't participate in a GroupSing.

Today it is cameragate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34269613

They (the press) seem desperate to throw up as many bad news stories as they can about Corbyn.

I wonder if the establishment are a wee bit worried that this guy will shake up their comfy wee life in the "Westminster Village"? They certainly don't seem to have "got it" that Scotland is fed up with the 2 establishment parties that existed whilst New Labour and the tories were in power. We don't want Eton Oxbridge types running the parties and pandering to business with trickle down economics whilst they get richer. We want a government that will make people's lives better.

I am quite looking forward to a shake up.

[heretoday]

I am hoping that Corbyn's tactic of asking simple questions about things that matter to ordinary folk will eventually show Cameron up. It certainly makes a change from the usual common room bread roll throwing contest.

[steakbake]

I am hoping that Corbyn's tactic of asking simple questions about things that matter to ordinary folk will eventually show Cameron up. It certainly makes a change from the usual common room bread roll throwing contest.

Definitely better than slinging pre-made statements at each other.

[lucky]

Corbyn is determined to change politics with consensus not force. His performance at PMQs was very good. Labour MPs need to realise that change is coming and they better get with it quickly as that's what the party wants. Will Jez be the next PM? I doubt it, he will be 71 by the next GE but I believe he will have set Labour on a different route by then. People are crying for politics of change and Jez can deliver it.

Here in Scotland Labour is on its knees but I'm hoping for a Corbyn bounce which will keep Labour around. The party should be aiming to have around 30 list MSPs and a handful of constituency MSPs. The SNP must be held to account, our devolved parliament must start using its existing powers not carping on about powers it does not have. Scotland decided last year on the constitution and we may be asked again in the future but until then we should demand our MSPs start using all the powers they have to improve Scotland

[Just Alf]

Corbyn is determined to change politics with consensus not force. His performance at PMQs was very good. Labour MPs need to realise that change is coming and they better get with it quickly as that's what the party wants. Will Jez be the next PM? I doubt it, he will be 71 by the next GE but I believe he will have set Labour on a different route by then. People are crying for politics of change and Jez can deliver it.

Here in Scotland Labour is on its knees but I'm hoping for a Corbyn bounce which will keep Labour around. The party should be aiming to have around 30 list MSPs and a handful of constituency MSPs. The SNP must be held to account, our devolved parliament must start using its existing powers not carping on about powers it does not have. Scotland decided last year on the constitution and we may be asked again in the future but until then we should demand our MSPs start using all the powers they have to improve Scotland

Good post, agree with all of that :agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

"Alistair Darling urges Scottish Labour not to move to the left" - BBC website

Be a darling, Darling and just p.o.
Yesterday man.

http://derekbateman.co.uk/2015/09/17/just-desserts/

[ronaldo7]

British army General doesn't have the kahoonas to put his name to this. A Mutiny in the ranks indeed.

These stories get better by the day.

http://t.co/O7jjPqfyez

[marinello59]

British army General doesn't have the kahoonas to put his name to this. A Mutiny in the ranks indeed.

These stories get better by the day.

http://t.co/O7jjPqfyez

If this was said by a serving General rather than a Colonel Blimp type figure in the pub then his fair means or foul comment has just earned him the sack if they can identify him.
It's not been unusual for Generals to criticise recent Governments about downsizing of the armed forces, The Tories are as guilty as Labour are here when it comes to reducing manpower whilst increasing our commitments overseas.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-loses-fifth-of-labour-voters-with-critics-already-plotting-to-oust-him-10508584.html

[hibsbollah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-loses-fifth-of-labour-voters-with-critics-already-plotting-to-oust-him-10508584.html

The same pollsters had Corbyn cutting the Tory lead from 9% to 5%, but this was hidden amongst the banner headlines in the guardian and independent about Corbyns low personal rating. They will start clamouring for a coup by January, when of course any sensible person knows the knackered Labour ship will take 18 months at least to turn round. The Westminster hacks and their contacts in the PLP will never give him the time he needs.

[Hibbyradge]

This is the video - https://www.facebook.com/Johnmcjohn/videos/10153819548362176/

https://scontent-mrs1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11219225_10153819641127176_7074149831187917705_n.j pg?oh=1e87726cd1bf3d1f37ac5e522b1749ad&oe=569E7D9D

[marinello59]

This is the video - https://www.facebook.com/Johnmcjohn/videos/10153819548362176/

https://scontent-mrs1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11219225_10153819641127176_7074149831187917705_n.j pg?oh=1e87726cd1bf3d1f37ac5e522b1749ad&oe=569E7D9D

I thought he said the SNP were behind the privatisation meaning they supported it. I have no idea if they did or not. His Calmac comment suggests he has been very badly briefed.
I can see relations between himself and Dugdale becoming very frosty in the coming months.

[Colr]

I thought he said the SNP were behind the privatisation meaning they supported it. I have no idea if they did or not. His Calmac comment suggests he has been very badly briefed.
I can see relations between himself and Dugdale becoming very frosty in the coming months.

He also mentioned the decimation of the FE system to fund fee uni fees for the Scottish middle class tartan tories.

[marinello59]

He also mentioned the decimation of the FE system to fund fee uni fees for the Scottish middle class tartan tories.

Aye, he made some good points as well.

[ronaldo7]

I thought he did well, until he came to Scotland, and whoever briefed him (Dugdale, McTernan, McDougall):dunno: made a bit of a hash of it. Other than that he was fine. Seems he might be getting a tougher ride than all those who voted for him thought.

On the subject of Flags not building houses, he was correct.

Current standings

Flags = 0
Labour 2003 - 2007 = 6
SNP 2007 - 2015 = 4,500

[snooky]

I thought he did well, until he came to Scotland, and whoever briefed him (Dugdale, McTernan, McDougall):dunno: made a bit of a hash of it. Other than that he was fine. Seems he might be getting a tougher ride than all those who voted for him thought.

On the subject of Flags not building houses, he was correct.

Current standings

Flags = 0
Labour 2003 - 2007 = 6
SNP 2007 - 2015 = 4,500


:top marks

On some other items Juggling Jeremy has either been misinformed or is barefacedly lying - either one is a poor start as his credibility is oot the windie already.

[lucky]

The SNP choose to privatise scotrail this year and are still in the process of tendering the Calmac services. On housing go back further in time and see how many houses were built under Labour and it far outstrips the 820 houses a year that have been built under the SNP. In West Lothian the Labour council are on track to build a 1000 houses over 4 years but these houses are included in the SNP govt figures but locally the Nats voted against the Labour budget to do it.

[Hibbyradge]

The SNP choose to privatise scotrail this year and are still in the process of tendering the Calmac services. On housing go back further in time and see how many houses were built under Labour and it far outstrips the 820 houses a year that have been built under the SNP. In West Lothian the Labour council are on track to build a 1000 houses over 4 years but these houses are included in the SNP govt figures but locally the Nats voted against the Labour budget to do it.

From here (http://wingsoverscotland.com/advice-for-jeremy-corbyn/);

Let’s just quickly run through those facts, shall we?

“The SNP are privatising CalMac.”

Not true. The SNP are following a tendering process which is required by EU law, and which was also undertaken in an identical fashion by the last Labour-led administration at Holyrood. No decision has as yet been made.

“[The SNP] were behind privatisation of ScotRail.”

Hang on, what? Britain’s railways (including Scotland’s) were privatised by the Tories under the Railways Act 1993. The Scottish Parliament didn’t even exist at the time.

Privatisation/nationalisation of railways is reserved to Westminster under the same act – it’s totally outwith the Scottish Government’s control. It’s currently forbidden by law for the public sector to own/operate Britain’s railways except in emergencies.

[xyz23jc]

From here (http://wingsoverscotland.com/advice-for-jeremy-corbyn/);

Let’s just quickly run through those facts, shall we?

“The SNP are privatising CalMac.”

Not true. The SNP are following a tendering process which is required by EU law, and which was also undertaken in an identical fashion by the last Labour-led administration at Holyrood. No decision has as yet been made.

“[The SNP] were behind privatisation of ScotRail.”

Hang on, what? Britain’s railways (including Scotland’s) were privatised by the Tories under the Railways Act 1993. The Scottish Parliament didn’t even exist at the time.

Privatisation/nationalisation of railways is reserved to Westminster under the same act – it’s totally outwith the Scottish Government’s control. It’s currently forbidden by law for the public sector to own/operate Britain’s railways except in emergencies.

Exactly what I was thinking, but couldn't be bothered to look it up! Good to see LIEBOUR have changed their spots though eh? New politics, new approach, Tartan Tories repeated ad infinitum...W******! :agree:

[snooky]

From here (http://wingsoverscotland.com/advice-for-jeremy-corbyn/);

Let’s just quickly run through those facts, shall we?

“The SNP are privatising CalMac.”

Not true. The SNP are following a tendering process which is required by EU law, and which was also undertaken in an identical fashion by the last Labour-led administration at Holyrood. No decision has as yet been made.

“[The SNP] were behind privatisation of ScotRail.”

Hang on, what? Britain’s railways (including Scotland’s) were privatised by the Tories under the Railways Act 1993. The Scottish Parliament didn’t even exist at the time.

Privatisation/nationalisation of railways is reserved to Westminster under the same act – it’s totally outwith the Scottish Government’s control. It’s currently forbidden by law for the public sector to own/operate Britain’s railways except in emergencies.

I can understand Lucky posting what he did, & likewise Hibbyradge.
My point is this. We are all swamped by lies & misinformation by people who damn well know better i.e. Politicians, spin doctors, the media, etc.
I just wish it was a criminal offence for any of them make a statement knowing it to be a deliberate & blatant lie.
The prisons would be full.
Alternatively, howz about making it mandatory for MP's to be wired to a polygraph every time they make a public statement with the results being published at the finish?

[ronaldo7]

The SNP choose to privatise scotrail this year and are still in the process of tendering the Calmac services. On housing go back further in time and see how many houses were built under Labour and it far outstrips the 820 houses a year that have been built under the SNP. In West Lothian the Labour council are on track to build a 1000 houses over 4 years but these houses are included in the SNP govt figures but locally the Nats voted against the Labour budget to do it.

If you go back far enough, I'm sure you'll find Labour did build houses, the SNP didn't, as they weren't in power until recently.

The trouble with Labour is they took the eye off the ball and built 6 houses in 4 years...Pathetic.

The SNP have picked up that loose ball, and are running with it to Labour's chagrin.

Your other points on Scotrail and Calmac have been blown out the water as per the post by Radge.

Can you tell me where you got your info on the rail and ferry stuff, I'd be interested to know:aok:

[lucky]

From here (http://wingsoverscotland.com/advice-for-jeremy-corbyn/);

Let’s just quickly run through those facts, shall we?

“The SNP are privatising CalMac.”

Not true. The SNP are following a tendering process which is required by EU law, and which was also undertaken in an identical fashion by the last Labour-led administration at Holyrood. No decision has as yet been made.

“[The SNP] were behind privatisation of ScotRail.”

Hang on, what? Britain’s railways (including Scotland’s) were privatised by the Tories under the Railways Act 1993. The Scottish Parliament didn’t even exist at the time.

Privatisation/nationalisation of railways is reserved to Westminster under the same act – it’s totally outwith the Scottish Government’s control. It’s currently forbidden by law for the public sector to own/operate Britain’s railways except in emergencies.

Wrong but not for first time. The SNP could have delayed letting the Scotrail franchise out to after the Smith commission report was law or alternatively set the franchise guildlines up to make it not profitable for any privateer to bid. They choose to sell it of for 10 years

Cal Mac does not have be put out to tender. Not like the SNP to be hiding & blaming Westminster or Europe

[marinello59]

Wrong but not for first time. The SNP could have delayed letting the Scotrail franchise out to after the Smith commission report was law or alternatively set the franchise guildlines up to make it not profitable for any privateer to bid. They choose to sell it of for 10 years

Cal Mac does not have be put out to tender. Not like the SNP to be hiding & blaming Westminster or Europe

Correct about rail privatisation. It looks like the left leaning SNP seemed happy to sell the franchise rather than wait and examine the various options.
Correct on Calmac as well although Labour and the SNP simply seem to have switched positions on that one.
Corbyn's point about flags was a good one, it's a pity about the ham fisted delivery. When you are in need of housing it doesn't matter if you live in Glasgow or London, the solutions will be the same.

[Hibbyradge]

Wrong but not for first time. The SNP could have delayed letting the Scotrail franchise out to after the Smith commission report was law or alternatively set the franchise guildlines up to make it not profitable for any privateer to bid. They choose to sell it of for 10 years

Cal Mac does not have be put out to tender. Not like the SNP to be hiding & blaming Westminster or Europe

What was said in that article about Scotrail which was wrong? :confused:

The "not for the first time" comment was a bit antagonistic and unnecessary.

[ronaldo7]

Correct about rail privatisation. It looks like the left leaning SNP seemed happy to sell the franchise rather than wait and examine the various options.
Correct on Calmac as well although Labour and the SNP simply seem to have switched positions on that one.
Corbyn's point about flags was a good one, it's a pity about the ham fisted delivery. When you are in need of housing it doesn't matter if you live in Glasgow or London, the solutions will be the same.

The SNP would then have been blamed for dragging their heels on the subject. They just got on and done the job, just like the housebuilding. :aok::greengrin

[snooky]

Wrong but not for first time. The SNP could have delayed letting the Scotrail franchise out to after the Smith commission report was law or alternatively set the franchise guildlines up to make it not profitable for any privateer to bid. They choose to sell it of for 10 years

Cal Mac does not have be put out to tender. Not like the SNP to be hiding & blaming Westminster or Europe

Claims & counter claims. :confused:

Does anybody have an official source that proves once & for all whether they 'have' or 'don't have' to?

[marinello59]

The SNP would then have been blamed for dragging their heels on the subject. They just got on and done the job, just like the housebuilding. :aok::greengrin

Aye, they just got on with selling the franchise when they didn't need to. I'm not so sure anybody would have attacked them for holding off to consider all options including selling the franchise. It may well still have proved the best option but to not consider another way was a mistake.
I'll take your word on the figures for new council homes. What are the figures for affordable housing in general like? The SNP may be doing better than Labour but they could still do much more.

[ronaldo7]

Aye, they just got on with selling the franchise when they didn't need to. I'm not so sure anybody would have attacked them for holding off to consider all options including selling the franchise. It may well still have proved the best option but to not consider another way was a mistake.
I'll take your word on the figures for new council homes. What are the figures for affordable housing in general like? The SNP may be doing better than Labour but they could still do much more.

You not been following the SNP BAD news these days then. You can't get out of bed in the morning without hearing someone having a go.

Don't worry though, they'll cope:wink:

Still trying to get final figure on Housing, but the figure I quoted was on the low side. Looks like it's much more.

I agree we could still do more on many things, if only we didn't have to mitigate policies made in England.

[Moulin Yarns]

Wrong but not for first time. The SNP could have delayed letting the Scotrail franchise out to after the Smith commission report was law or alternatively set the franchise guildlines up to make it not profitable for any privateer to bid. They choose to sell it of for 10 years

Cal Mac does not have be put out to tender. Not like the SNP to be hiding & blaming Westminster or Europe

CalMac isn't being put out to tender, the Clyde and Hebrides Ferry Services are. CalMac are one of the bidders for those services.


EU law requires the Scottish Government to tender ferry services. The current contract was awarded to CalMac in 2007 following an exercise initiated by the previous administration. Since then, in-depth European Commission State aid investigation has reinforced this legal requirement
Breaking the law would leave Ministers open to a costly legal challenge with the likelihood of substantial fines.

[lucky]

What was said in that article about Scotrail which was wrong? :confused:

The "not for the first time" comment was a bit antagonistic and unnecessary.

Yip it was and therefore I should not have posted it but the reality I'm sick and tired of the SNP govt saying one thing and doing the other. As for the facts on both items I've been there when the questions have put to Keith Brown and Derrick McKay. They both hid behind the advice give by officials but wouldnt share legal advice unlike the unions who had legal advice there

[marinello59]

You not been following the SNP BAD news these days then. You can't get out of bed in the morning without hearing someone having a go.

Don't worry though, they'll cope:wink:

Still trying to get final figure on Housing, but the figure I quoted was on the low side. Looks like it's much more.

I agree we could still do more on many things, if only we didn't have to mitigate policies made in England.

Good. The Government of Scotland should be getting called to account when they are getting it wrong. Until Labour gets its act together properly that won't be happening enough.

[ronaldo7]

Good. The Government of Scotland should be getting called to account when they are getting it wrong. Until Labour gets its act together properly that won't be happening enough.

I'm all for them being held to account, but they should try and deal in facts.

6 ***** houses, now them's the facts

[lucky]

I'm all for them being held to account, but they should try and deal in facts.

6 ***** houses, now them's the facts

And these figures are out of date. West Lothian Labour council will have built 1000 houses built by the next council election. Now that's a fact. But guess who win claim the credit

[ronaldo7]

And these figures are out of date. West Lothian Labour council will have built 1000 houses built by the next council election. Now that's a fact. But guess who win claim the credit

Try and keep up mate:greengrin

The figure of 6 was me quoting your building programme from 2003 - 2007 when you were in power.

I'm glad that the Cooncil in West Lothian are getting their act together:aok: Any ideas where the money is coming from http://www.snp.org/vision/healthier-scotland/affordable-housing

[ronaldo7]

The rail deal...

Fares between any two Scottish cities starting at £5

Reduced fares for jobseekers

Free Wi-Fi connection on all trains

23% more carriages across the network

Scotrail staff guaranteed no compulsory redundancies for the lifetime of the contract

A commitment to earnings of at least the living wage for all staff and sub contractors

Protection of rail staff pensions and travel rights

Trade Union representation at Franchise board meetings

Provision for the Government to cancel the deal after 5 years if Abellio not up to scratch.

New trains from 2017 on the Ed-Gla line

High speed trains to Aberdeen and Inverness from 2018

[Stranraer]

So Labour have a "left wing" leader who supports Irish unification, re-nationalisation of the railways and yet still attacks the SNP. Honestly, Labour still haven't learned the lesson of May 2015. The SNP will likely sweep to victory in 2016 given the tripe coming from down South and Holyrood.

[hibsbollah]

Is this the most blatant :hijack: ever? There's plenty of other Nats vs labs bun fight threads elsewhere.

[Stranraer]

Is this the most blatant :hijack: ever? There's plenty of other Nats vs labs bun fight threads elsewhere.

Sorry about that (it wasn't intentional). I like Corbyn's policies.

Apologies again.

[hibsbollah]

Sorry about that (it wasn't intentional). I like Corbyn's policies.

Apologies again.

No need to apologise, it started long before you!

[lucky]

Try and keep up mate:greengrin

The figure of 6 was me quoting your building programme from 2003 - 2007 when you were in power.

I'm glad that the Cooncil in West Lothian are getting their act together:aok: Any ideas where the money is coming from http://www.snp.org/vision/healthier-scotland/affordable-housing

I'm keeping its hardly difficult, so using your logic that the houses being built are really funded by Westminister.

[lucky]

The points you made on the franchise are just lifted from Abellio promises. But yet again your wrong on much of it.

Peak fares between E&G going up, with a potential dispute over staffing levels brewing before Xmas

No member of Scotrail staff is anywhere close to living wage all way above thanks to TUs

TU rep invite to some board meeting not all

Railway pension and travel facilities are protected under law, set when railway was privatised

It's a 10 a year contract, after 5 years contract can be stopped with 2 years notice. Meaning a minimum a 7 year sell off

The HST trains for Aberdeen and Inverness services are over 25 years old

Wifi will be fitted unlikely to work on most trains

The most galling thing by you is your defending the Dutch national railway running our railway and taking profits back to invest in their railway

[ronaldo7]

I'm keeping its hardly difficult, so using your logic that the houses being built are really funded by Westminister.

Not by Westminster, just the Scottish Government using our pocket money to spread round the country and allow local councils to build houses.

Saves having to send any money back to London eh. £1.5 Billion was it?

[ronaldo7]

The points you made on the franchise are just lifted from Abellio promises. But yet again your wrong on much of it.

Peak fares between E&G going up, with a potential dispute over staffing levels brewing before Xmas

No member of Scotrail staff is anywhere close to living wage all way above thanks to TUs

TU rep invite to some board meeting not all

Railway pension and travel facilities are protected under law, set when railway was privatised

It's a 10 a year contract, after 5 years contract can be stopped with 2 years notice. Meaning a minimum a 7 year sell off

The HST trains for Aberdeen and Inverness services are over 25 years old

Wifi will be fitted unlikely to work on most trains

The most galling thing by you is your defending the Dutch national railway running our railway and taking profits back to invest in their railway

Take a look at my post again and please indicate where I'm defending anything?

I posted up what the deal was, for people to make informed decisions on it.

[ronaldo7]

Is this the most blatant :hijack: ever? There's plenty of other Nats vs labs bun fight threads elsewhere.

Your right, I'm sorry for my part in the thread hijack, I'm out now:aok:

[lucky]

Not by Westminster, just the Scottish Government using our pocket money to spread round the country and allow local councils to build houses.

Saves having to send any money back to London eh. £1.5 Billion was it?

Is the councils not just getting "pocket money" from Holyrood then. Maybe the Nats could have used the £400m underspend to help councils build much needed houses

[lucky]

Take a look at my post again and please indicate where I'm defending anything?

I posted up what the deal was, for people to make informed decisions on it.

So you posted some of supposed benefits form the deal but we're not endorsing it? That's awfully kind of you but I somehow just don't believe you.

[ronaldo7]

So you posted some of supposed benefits form the deal but we're not endorsing it? That's awfully kind of you but I somehow just don't believe you.

I posted up direct from the BBC what they reported the deal was. Maybe they were lying too eh.

Anyway, I'm off to listen to Jeremy wrap himself in the British Flag, and tell us how patriotic he is. Have a good day.

[marinello59]

A very good speech from Corbyn at the Labour Party conference. Came across as a decent, principled and honest man. I am not convinced he will ever be PM but he may well manage to make the Labour Party the people's party again. I've really warmed to him.

[marinello59]

I posted up direct from the BBC what they reported the deal was. Maybe they were lying too eh.

Anyway, I'm off to listen to Jeremy wrap himself in the British Flag, and tell us how patriotic he is. Have a good day.

Which he didn't do. Are you disappointed or pleased? :greengrin
I think he managed to answer those who questioned his patriotism brilliantly without pandering to the language of the right at all.

[hibsbollah]

A wonderful speech from Corbyn today. A load of meandering around issues but always returning to the central theme of Kindness. Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. An end to personal attacks and cyber bullying. Quoting Maya Angelou, recalling the memory of the great Keir Hardie. Policy emphasis on a house building programme and an emphasis on mental health provision.

i feel like I have someone to vote for.

[Pete]

Wonderful speech but I'm just sorry I watched it on the BBC. Initial analysis from a Blairite who was always going to slate him followed by a visit to a working mens club for balance...where they spoke to two men who weren't convinced. **** off.

[Moulin Yarns]

Eh? 59% of the electorate didn't vote for you Jeremy. 59% of Labour supporters did. A huge difference.

[Hibbyradge]

A very good speech from Corbyn at the Labour Party conference. Came across as a decent, principled and honest man. I am not convinced he will ever be PM but he may well manage to make the Labour Party the people's party again. I've really warmed to him.

I saw the last part of his speech and I agree, he did very well.

For the first time since, whisper it, Tony Blair in his first term, a Labour leader sounded honest and authentic.

Apart, maybe, from Trident, there was nothing in his speech which the majority of Labour supporters would disagree with, and it really was refreshing to hear him talk about, and say, things that actually mattered and not just try to avoid controversy.

I still expect him to be dragged off to positions of lunacy by some of the bammers on the far left, and he's going to get a real doing from the press, but he's done well so far.

[Hibbyradge]

Eh? 59% of the electorate didn't vote for you Jeremy. 59% of Labour supporters did. A huge difference.

The Labour Party membership was his electorate.

[Moulin Yarns]

The Labour Party membership was his electorate.

You know what I mean. The electorate is not the same as the Labour members, and £3 supporters that elected Jolly Jeremy as leader of the opposition.

[Hibbyradge]

You know what I mean. The electorate is not the same as the Labour members, and £3 supporters that elected Jolly Jeremy as leader of the opposition.

What was the reference to the electorate?

[Moulin Yarns]

He said he had got the votes of 59% of the electorate.

[marinello59]

He said he had got the votes of 59% of the electorate.

The electorate in this case being the Labour Party. Wasn't it?:confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

He said electorate. I am on the electoral register therefore I am part of the electorate. I am not a Labour supporter so don't get a vote in their internal affairs. I was not part of this 59%

[marinello59]

He said electorate. I am on the electoral register therefore I am part of the electorate. I am not a Labour supporter so don't get a vote in their internal affairs. I was not part of this 59%

Have you looked at the definition of he word electorate? The electoral roll is not the same thing.
Anyway, what did you think of the rest of the content of the speech?

[Moulin Yarns]

I actually like him but don't hold out much hope that he can implement his own views on the party. Take Trident, the party support the replacement, he doesn't.

[Hibbyradge]

He said electorate. I am on the electoral register therefore I am part of the electorate. I am not a Labour supporter so don't get a vote in their internal affairs. I was not part of this 59%

The electorate means "all those who are entitled to vote".

Corbyn received 59% of the electorate.

[marinello59]

I actually like him but don't hold out much hope that he can implement his own views on the party. Take Trident, the party support the replacement, he doesn't.

It might just be that the thousands of new members who have joined since he was elected make it more likely to become party policy. There was no way he was going to become party leader. He might win a few more impossible battles over the next few years. He won't shy away from the fight, that's for sure.

[Hibbyradge]

I've just been told that part of Corbyn's speech was actually written for Ed Milliband in 2011, but he chose not to use it!

I really don't know what to think!

[Moulin Yarns]

I will add that a lot of what he is saying is already in other parties policies. Renationalisation of railway for example.

[Hibbyradge]

I will add that a lot of what he is saying is already in other parties policies. Renationalisation of railway for example.

I don't understand your point. Loads of policies are shared by different political parties.

Anyway, here's the stuff about the speech http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

[Hibrandenburg]

He said electorate. I am on the electoral register therefore I am part of the electorate. I am not a Labour supporter so don't get a vote in their internal affairs. I was not part of this 59%

Did you vote for Hameron to be leader of the Tories?

[Tyler Durden]

I've just been told that part of Corbyn's speech was actually written for Ed Milliband in 2011, but he chose not to use it!

I really don't know what to think!

If this is true, I'm not really sure what the problem is? It's basically just wording aligned with views Corbyn is well known to hold. We don't expect him or any politician to write all their own speeches do we?

[Hibbyradge]

If this is true, I'm not really sure what the problem is? It's basically just wording aligned with views Corbyn is well known to hold. We don't expect him or any politician to write all their own speeches do we?

I'm not really sure what the problem is either. It just seems to have made the speech a bit false or manufactured.

It diminishes its authenticity somehow. I can't explain it any better than that.

[marinello59]

I'm not really sure what the problem is either. It just seems to have made the speech a bit false or manufactured.

It diminishes its authenticity somehow. I can't explain it any better than that.

If Milliband had said those words then they wouldn't have rung true, try imagining him delivering them.
That's why they weren't used. It seemed like a genuine reflection of Corbyn's views to me though whether I agreed with all he said or not.

[Hibbyradge]

If Milliband had said those words then they wouldn't have rung true, try imagining him delivering them.
That's why they weren't used. It seemed like a genuine reflection of Corbyn's views to me though whether I agreed with all he said or not.

I was wondering about that. Miliband was a decent orator even if he sounded a bit plummy.

Maybe if he'd used that speech his credibility would have risen in the country, if not the party. Who knows. He didn't.

I agree, though, it suited Corbyn to a tee. It just makes the New Politics tag line seem that little bit more hollow, but that might just be me.

Interesting time for Labour for sure.

I might even vote for them next time, since I won't be voting SNP anymore.

[marinello59]

I might even vote for them next time, since I won't be voting SNP anymore.

You never know. If Sturgeon wants even more MP's they will have to start standing down South as well. :greengrin

[xyz23jc]

It might just be that the thousands of new members who have joined since he was elected make it more likely to become party policy. There was no way he was going to become party leader. He might win a few more impossible battles over the next few years. He won't shy away from the fight, that's for sure.

What, like renewing Trident you mean? :greengrin

[marinello59]

What, like renewing Trident you mean? :greengrin

Erm.... Not so sure what you mean there. He is just in the door so getting conference to debate this so soon, especially with the stance of some unions, was never going to happen so present policy had to be carried.
I would expect it to be debated next year though following Eagle's review. Even then it will be a hard sell for him given that many of his shadow cabinet are for renewal. Like I already said the key to this may lie with all the recent new members of he can get them sufficiently organised. He will not shy away from this because others tell him it is divisive.
Even then unless he gives good strong proposals for a beefing up of conventional forces he will struggle to convince a great deal of the public. He could do worse than take a look at the SNP's defence policy in the Indy white paper. Their focus on defending a pre-dominantly maritime nation was not only right, it exposes both Labour and Tory as lacking joined up thinking on this issue at times.

[ronaldo7]

Which he didn't do. Are you disappointed or pleased? :greengrin
I think he managed to answer those who questioned his patriotism brilliantly without pandering to the language of the right at all.

:greengrin

Didn't see it all, although what I did see, he seemed to be doing well. He was still getting used to the autocue system, and lost himself a few times. He'll learn though.

He's only been in the job a couple of weeks, so I don't expect him to come up with his New Labour Policies, although he'll have to watch his back, as I believe Trident is still getting ordered if Labour get into power.

It's a shame he never apologised for his gaffes in the last couple of days, and asking people to come home. Trouble is the locks have been changed.:wink:

Interesting times ahead, and with Carmichael losing his first rounder today, it might make others stop lying eh. Rail privatisation and Calmac spring to mind.

[The_Todd]

:greengrin



Interesting times ahead, and with Carmichael losing his first rounder today, it might make others stop lying eh. Rail privatisation and Calmac spring to mind.

The SNP haven't exactly had a good day today, at either WM or Holyrood.

[marinello59]

The SNP haven't exactly had a good day today, at either WM or Holyrood.

Shhhhhhhhhh! :greengrin

[marinello59]

:greengrin

Didn't see it all, although what I did see, he seemed to be doing well. He was still getting used to the autocue system, and lost himself a few times. He'll learn though.

He's only been in the job a couple of weeks, so I don't expect him to come up with his New Labour Policies, although he'll have to watch his back, as I believe Trident is still getting ordered if Labour get into power.

It's a shame he never apologised for his gaffes in the last couple of days, and asking people to come home. Trouble is the locks have been changed.:wink:

Interesting times ahead, and with Carmichael losing his first rounder today, it might make others stop lying eh. Rail privatisation and Calmac spring to mind.

I don't think he will ever get used to the autocue.:greengrin
Your last comment , I think that was discussed on here last night. On rail the SNP do have a case to answer, Corbyn didn't lie, he just didn't make his point fully. The Calmac one is quite funny with SNP simply changing their respective stance on it as they swapped being the party of Government. Neither of them come out of that one well.

[Moulin Yarns]

Jeremy has sent me a personal email!







During the last three months, our party has changed. The hopes of so many people – of a different Britain, a better Britain, a more equal, more decent Britain – have grown our movement to a size and strength we haven't seen for decades.

They are fed up with the inequality, the injustice, the unnecessary poverty – and if you are too, I say this: join us. Join us and help strengthen this movement. Join us, and help us beat the Tories in 2020.

So – will you join me as a Labour Party member?


Yes! I'll join (http://www.labour.org.uk/page/m/6e8ad467/52be255a/64d19a61/2a8e1ca/1458068970/VEsH/)


No, but I'll volunteer with my local party (http://www.labour.org.uk/page/m/6e8ad467/52be255a/64d19a61/2a8e1cc/1458068970/VEsE/)



I know there's a big British majority for building a more equal society, for eliminating poverty and homelessness. We are a rich country: these things are not necessary or inevitable. They can – and must – be changed.

Let us build a kinder politics, a more caring society together. Let us put our values, the people's values, back into politics.

Thank you for being a part of this wonderful movement.

Jeremy

Jeremy Corbyn
Leader of the Labour Party





Dear Jeremy,

It is too late, people like me, who are fed up with 2 party politics, have already chosen to support a party who want to a fairer society and to re-nationalise major infrastructures such as the railways. It is also not good practice to lie about other parties, as you will be found out.


The SNP are privatising CalMac.

The SNP are following a tendering process which is required by EU law, and which was also undertaken in an identical fashion by the last Labour-led administration at Holyrood. No decision has as yet been made.


The SNP were behind privatisation of ScotRail.

Britain’s railways were privatised by the Tories under the Railways Act 1993 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail). The Scottish Parliament didn’t even exist at the time.Privatisation/nationalisation of railways is reserved to Westminster under the same act – it’s totally outwith the Scottish Government’s control. It’s currently forbidden by law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/25) for the public sector to own/operate Britain’s railways except in emergencies. Labour didn't repeal the Act during 13 years in power from 1997-2010.


The SNP are cutting local government funding”

the SNP has protected local-government funding, and indeed just days ago it was shown to have OVER-funded local authorities by £165m (http://wingsoverscotland.com/at-first-glance/) in compensation for its policy of freezing the Council Tax.

[snooky]

Jeremy has sent me a personal email!



Dear Jeremy,

It is too late, people like me, who are fed up with 2 party politics, have already chosen to support a party who want to a fairer society and to re-nationalise major infrastructures such as the railways. It is also not good practice to lie about other parties, as you will be found out..................


Seconded :agree:

[steakbake]

Can't believe the negative and hysterical coverage Corbyn's comments on weapons of mass destruction are attracting. I had no idea that such a humane viewpoint had become so out of step with political ideas in this country. Mental.

[hibsbollah]

Can't believe the negative and hysterical coverage Corbyn's comments on weapons of mass destruction are attracting. I had no idea that such a humane viewpoint had become so out of step with political ideas in this country. Mental.

The media are brutalising him. Sky was ridiculous today, cutting off Owen Jones as he was exposing the lie about Corbyns speech (NOT written for somebody else as widely reported). And I thought Pienaar was disgraceful on the BBC today, accusing him of not answering the question on whether JC would press the nuclear button, literally shrieking at him, and then when he did answer the question (while pointing out, bearing in mind how well known JCs position is, how daft the question was) it is framed as a threat to national security:confused:

Can we not, as a civil society, just accept that political parties are entitled to have debates over policies, especially on moral issues like nuclear weapons, four years out from an election, without that being painted as some kind of bitter and divisive split? I don't want a political party being a homogenous undemocratic politburo in tow to an all powerful leader.

[RyeSloan]

The media are brutalising him. Sky was ridiculous today, cutting off Owen Jones as he was exposing the lie about Corbyns speech (NOT written for somebody else as widely reported). And I thought Pienaar was disgraceful on the BBC today, accusing him of not answering the question on whether JC would press the nuclear button, literally shrieking at him, and then when he did answer the question (while pointing out, bearing in mind how well JCs position is, how daft the question was) it is framed as a threat to national security:confused: Can we not, as a civil society, just accept that political parties are entitled to have debates over policies, especially on moral issues like nuclear weapons, four years out from an election, without that being painted as some kind of bitter and divisive split? I don't want a political party being a homogenous undemocratic politburo in tow to an all powerful leader.

Fair points but there is no point in having a nuclear deterrent if push comes to shove you say you would never use it...so IF national security depends on an effective deterrent (and it's a big if I grant you) then I suppose that's fair enough

The speech wasn't exactly written for Corbyn either was it. A bit of a storm in a tea cup for sure but none the less it wasn't the smartest move either.

As for debates...I think you are right it does seem a bit OTT but then we've rarely had a major leader who has had such little support from his sitting MPs so no surprise that it's causing a few waves. Especially considering today's 'on message' requirements of 24hr media.

[Big Ed]

Especially considering today's 'on message' requirements of 24hr media.

I am beginning to believe that this may be part of Corbyn's appeal.

At times I squirmed watching Miliband, Balls and most of the rest of the shadow cabinet, tying themselves in knots for precisely that reason...

All I see now is Corbyn effortlessly side-stepping clumsy traps set up by tabloid TV interviewers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywigVgX6GMY

[lucky]

Sadly in the pub tonight hearing anti Corbyn crap from ordinary guys. Interesting and surprisingly they don't like the SNP either. They regard themselves as centre right. I'm stunned at their attitude. In my mini pole Scotland is anti EU , anti-welfare, equal taxes and immigration.

House is going up for sale. Can't believe this my community

[hibsbollah]

I am beginning to believe that this may be part of Corbyn's appeal.

At times I squirmed watching Miliband, Balls and most of the rest of the shadow cabinet, tying themselves in knots for precisely that reason...

All I see now is Corbyn effortlessly side-stepping clumsy traps set up by tabloid TV interviewers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywigVgX6GMY

poor old Holmes. He actually destroyed himself.

[steakbake]

poor old Holmes. He actually destroyed himself.

Holmes is an arse. He's a chat show host turned news anchor and he's out of his depth. It's like watching Noel Edmonds filling in for Paxman.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Sadly in the pub tonight hearing anti Corbyn crap from ordinary guys. Interesting and surprisingly they don't like the SNP either. They regard themselves as centre right. I'm stunned at their attitude. In my mini pole Scotland is anti EU , anti-welfare, equal taxes and immigration.

House is going up for sale. Can't believe this my community

Your putting your house up for sale because guys in the pub have a different view from yourself ?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Your putting your house up for sale because guys in the pub have a different view from yourself ?

I found that a tad odd too.

[RyeSloan]

Sadly in the pub tonight hearing anti Corbyn crap from ordinary guys. Interesting and surprisingly they don't like the SNP either. They regard themselves as centre right. I'm stunned at their attitude. In my mini pole Scotland is anti EU , anti-welfare, equal taxes and immigration. House is going up for sale. Can't believe this my community

Well if they consider themselves centre right why would they have any time for Corbyn or indeed the SNP?

In happy to say that my views are probably quite removed from a lot of people in my boozer...hasn't prompted me to sell my house yet tho ;-)

[steakbake]

Well if they consider themselves centre right why would they have any time for Corbyn or indeed the SNP?

In happy to say that my views are probably quite removed from a lot of people in my boozer...hasn't prompted me to sell my house yet tho ;-)

Ultimate revenge, Lucky, would be to turn your gaff into a safe house for asylum seekers and Yes voters. Maybe set up a peace camp on the lawn?

[ronaldo7]

Sadly in the pub tonight hearing anti Corbyn crap from ordinary guys. Interesting and surprisingly they don't like the SNP either. They regard themselves as centre right. I'm stunned at their attitude. In my mini pole Scotland is anti EU , anti-welfare, equal taxes and immigration.

House is going up for sale. Can't believe this my community

Maybe Michelle will put you up in her London pad while you find yourself a place to doss.

[lucky]

Ok slight over reaction with regards to the house. But still shocked at how many people are supportive of the Tory party and think not having nuclear weapons puts the UKs security at risk

[RyeSloan]

Ok slight over reaction with regards to the house. But still shocked at how many people are supportive of the Tory party and think not having nuclear weapons puts the UKs security at risk

You don't have to support the Tory party not to believe in Corbyn or have a love affair with the SNP!

It is possible not to like politicians who remain convinced that central planning is the new old way forward and their never ending desire to meddle in everything and everyone's life while at the same time having no affinity to Dave and Gideon.

[heretoday]

Sadly in the pub tonight hearing anti Corbyn crap from ordinary guys. Interesting and surprisingly they don't like the SNP either. They regard themselves as centre right. I'm stunned at their attitude. In my mini pole Scotland is anti EU , anti-welfare, equal taxes and immigration.

House is going up for sale. Can't believe this my community

It's very easy to slip into that mindset when you go to the pub every night and rub shoulders with the usual bunch of beer guts, no marks and bookies' pals. I've heard some unbelievable opinions from so-called good guys in pubs. Real fascist stuff.

It's worth staying out of pubs except maybe on match days!

[ronaldo7]

Looks like another Corbynism has hit the buffers.

Anyone see a pattern forming here. http://t.co/aUfyUzu6K8

At least for now. Another discussion to be had.

[marinello59]

Looks like another Corbynism has hit the buffers.

Anyone see a pattern forming here. http://t.co/aUfyUzu6K8

At least for now. Another discussion to be had.

So the story is that a democratic party has to follow a due democratic process and Corbyn can't just impose everything he wants on day one? He should resign now. :agree:

[RyeSloan]

So the story is that a democratic party has to follow a due democratic process and Corbyn can't just impose everything he wants on day one? He should resign now. :agree:

True but on the flip side it suggests he could campaign in a GE on a manifesto that contains commitments to big ticket items (trident, student fees etc) that he has personally and vocally be dead against for a long time. That's a new world of politics for sure!

[ronaldo7]

So the story is that a democratic party has to follow a due democratic process and Corbyn can't just impose everything he wants on day one? He should resign now. :agree:

Maybe he was just down the pub speaking to some Ordinary guys, and changed policy then:greengrin

:taxi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgMo1rdrq2Y

King of Bikes.

[marinello59]

Maybe he was just down the pub speaking to some Ordinary guys, and changed policy then:greengrin

:taxi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgMo1rdrq2Y

King of Bikes.

Has he changed policy? :confused:
I reckon some of his ideas are bonkers and I can't see him leading his party at the next election but it's only fair to give him time to go through due process before trashing him.

[ronaldo7]

Has he changed policy? :confused:
I reckon some of his ideas are bonkers and I can't see him as leading his party at the next election but it's only fair to give him time to go through due process before trashing him.

I should have put a joke smiley on my post. I really want him to succeed but he's not going about it at all well imo.

It seems to me he's being eaten up by the big bad world of Politics, and I thought he could have played it a bit better having been in it for 32 years.

He looks a bit tired too, maybe a wee holiday up in Scotland for a day will help out:wink:

I hope it doesn't become too much for him though, as he seems a really nice man.

[marinello59]

I should have put a joke smiley on my post. I really want him to succeed but he's not going about it at all well imo.

It seems to me he's being eaten up by the big bad world of Politics, and I thought he could have played it a bit better having been in it for 32 years.

He looks a bit tired too, maybe a wee holiday up in Scotland for a day will help out:wink:

I hope it doesn't become too much for him though, as he seems a really nice man.

Maybe too nice.

[ronaldo7]

Some news from the Scottish Labour party to their colleagues. Stop mentioning the word SCOTLAND.

http://t.co/3hbQZotdOY

[Hibrandenburg]

He lost me when he said he would not under any circumstances "push the button". I'm against Trident but keeping it and not using it as a deterrent is like a vegetarian having his fridge brimming with pork chops.

[danhibees1875]

He lost me when he said he would not under any circumstances "push the button". I'm against Trident but keeping it and not using it as a deterrent is like a vegetarian having his fridge brimming with pork chops.

But he's also against keeping it?

[fulshie]

But he's also against keeping it?Yes, he is on record as saying that but did not commit to it at the Labour Party Conference. Kinda sums up the really difficult job he has on his hands.

[Hibs Class]

Maybe too nice.

Yes. The nirvana fallacy thread sums it up nicely.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21669968-labour-partys-new-leader-mission-show-his-supporters-lovely-time-hi-de-hi

[Pete]

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21669968-labour-partys-new-leader-mission-show-his-supporters-lovely-time-hi-de-hi

I've not opened the link but let me guess. Another pop at Jeremy Corbyn from a publication with a conservative editorial stance? :hmmm:

[Hibbyradge]

I've not opened the link but let me guess. Another pop at Jeremy Corbyn from a publication with a conservative editorial stance? :hmmm:

It's not promoting him, that's for sure, but it's worth a read.

The Economist did support the Tories in the last 2 elections, but they opted for Labour the previous couple of times. It also supported the democrats in the USA the last few times.

However, when you're on the extreme left of the party, you have the luxury of being able to dismiss everyone critical of your approach as right wing which is exactly what we'll see his supporters doing during his tenure.

Unfortunately, by doing so, and simply ignoring all the inconvenient criticism, it will just serve to doom the country to another decade of Tory rule.