Labour manifesto an election to soon.

[lord bunberry]

I’m a nationalist and independence is my overriding consideration when voting. Having said that I absolutely loved the labour manifesto and everything that Corbyn was saying during the election. Under normal circumstances without brexit and after years of Tory austerity I think that Corbyn might have won. I refuse to believe that all these seats in the traditional Labour heartlands would’ve voted Tory without the brexit issue clouding people’s opinion. Unlike many others I hope that Labour don’t change course and I hope that they continue in the same mould as they’ve done under Corbyn. The last thing this country needs is a new Labour type government which wouldn’t deliver the change this country needs. A similar approach with a slicker more polished leader is what’s needed not a change of policy.

[Ozyhibby]

I’m a nationalist and independence is my overriding consideration when voting. Having said that I absolutely loved the labour manifesto and everything that Corbyn was saying during the election. Under normal circumstances without brexit and after years of Tory austerity I think that Corbyn might have won. I refuse to believe that all these seats in the traditional Labour heartlands would’ve voted Tory without the brexit issue clouding people’s opinion. Unlike many others I hope that Labour don’t change course and I hope that they continue in the same mould as they’ve done under Corbyn. The last thing this country needs is a new Labour type government which wouldn’t deliver the change this country needs. A similar approach with a slicker more polished leader is what’s needed not a change of policy.

Disagree, the policies were a nonsense. Corbyn himself is an idiot and like Michael Foot before him he has delivered a massive right wing majority.
That’s the problem with socialism, there is never the right time for it or it’s not the right type of socialism. It exists only in theory. There are no working models of it anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

Disagree, the policies were a nonsense. Corbyn himself is an idiot and like Michael Foot before him he has delivered a massive right wing majority.
That’s the problem with socialism, there is never the right time for it or it’s not the right type of socialism. It exists only in theory. There are no working models of it anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is there a working model for then? Is it for the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, the inequality in society getting bigger and disabled people being told their fit to work despite their doctor telling them otherwise. This country is a shameful example of how capitalism isn’t serving anyone other than those who are at the top end of the pay scale. You say there’s no model for socialism, but I would argue that what’s happening in France right now is a big swing towards the socialist model.
This country has now chosen a path based on one issue that will have consequences for all those people in working class areas that voted for it. Turkey’s have voted for Christmas.

[lapsedhibee]

I’m a nationalist and independence is my overriding consideration when voting. Having said that I absolutely loved the labour manifesto and everything that Corbyn was saying during the election.
What, even when he was lying about having watched a television programme? :dunno:

[Hibrandenburg]

I’m a nationalist and independence is my overriding consideration when voting. Having said that I absolutely loved the labour manifesto and everything that Corbyn was saying during the election. Under normal circumstances without brexit and after years of Tory austerity I think that Corbyn might have won. I refuse to believe that all these seats in the traditional Labour heartlands would’ve voted Tory without the brexit issue clouding people’s opinion. Unlike many others I hope that Labour don’t change course and I hope that they continue in the same mould as they’ve done under Corbyn. The last thing this country needs is a new Labour type government which wouldn’t deliver the change this country needs. A similar approach with a slicker more polished leader is what’s needed not a change of policy.

I too like the idea of a move towards a more socialist state, similar to the Scandinavian model of higher taxes but much better public services and social security for the weakest in our society. However what Corbyn was offering was too much too quickly. However his downfall wasn't merely his policies, it was also in large a xenophobic wave of intolerance whipped up by our right wing media and confirmed by social media that has put the blame of all the countries woes at the feet of the socially weak and vulnerable. There are opinions being exchanged today that would have been utterly unacceptable 20 years ago or at least not aired in public. I think Corbyn is probably a decent human being but totally unelectable, especially in today's new England and thus in today's new Scotland.

[Smartie]

I’m a nationalist and independence is my overriding consideration when voting. Having said that I absolutely loved the labour manifesto and everything that Corbyn was saying during the election. Under normal circumstances without brexit and after years of Tory austerity I think that Corbyn might have won. I refuse to believe that all these seats in the traditional Labour heartlands would’ve voted Tory without the brexit issue clouding people’s opinion. Unlike many others I hope that Labour don’t change course and I hope that they continue in the same mould as they’ve done under Corbyn. The last thing this country needs is a new Labour type government which wouldn’t deliver the change this country needs. A similar approach with a slicker more polished leader is what’s needed not a change of policy.

It will be interesting to see whether it becomes about the policies over sound bites like “get Brexit done” in future.

I thought a few of his policies went too far - the ones about Private schools and tenants being able to buy landlords’ property were probably a bit too much for a lot of people at this stage.

I’m open to the idea of anything that isn’t working via private enterprise being nationalised, but I think there needs to be national, rational debate about various subjects before policy is rushed through at an emergency general election.

I also think that we need to have a frank conversation about how we fairly redistribute the wealth, the power and the hope from our older citizens to our younger ones. Is socialism the way to do that? If so, how do you get the older folk to democratically vote for it?

[Cataplana]

If it is fair to say that the Brexit vote was a response to austerity, then the government in power has to either come up with an alternative to austerity, now that Brexit Has Been Done. However they can also come up with an alternative excuse for it.

Namely that Brexit was the right path, but because of the lefties they are years behind schedule.

I hope that "getting Brexit done" equates to some improvement in people's minds, and that they haven't been ground down to the extent that they just want to drag everyone down to their level.

[Pretty Boy]

I said a few years back that Labour's move left was too far, too quick. I was told that the rejection of such policy in 1983 was irrelevant as the world had moved on and the left was now calling the tune in much of Europe (outside the traditionally left leaning Scandinavian countries). I see scant evidence of that in France or Germany and it seems to be the much maligned 'no one wants it' centre-left doing pretty well, electorally, in Spain and Italy.

There were elements of the Corbyn manifesto that I liked, large chunks of it in fact. However as I said on the other thread and as another poster and several commentators backed up: Labour membership and support is, or was, a broad church. I said the other day that there is a lot of people from traditional Labour backgrounds who are actually of a socio economic status that pushes them towards the old middle class. Someone earning £40K+ or so a year, nice house and can afford a holiday or 2. They might even have a child in private education or own a flat they rent. If that person has a social conscience and has traditionally voted Labour did the current manifesto do enough to convince them to continue to do so? Add into the mix a group of centrist/centre right Tories who are uncomfortable with Johnson. They were there for the taking and studiously ignored.

I'm not sure if the argument is that it's impossible to be principled and pragmatic but it did appear there was a steadfast refusal to give any concessions to the centre ground. The utterly predictable 'Blairite' or 'red Tory' jibes were as pitiful as they were irrelevant. When there is an assessment of what went wrong for Labour I hope everything is on the table. Was Brexit an issue, the biggest issue? More than likely. Was it the only one? Not even close. The fact is the vote Corbyn and Momentum were chasing turned out in numbers; a bigger share of the popular vote than Blair was the cry. However what use is that if it's centered around a few small areas and costs support across the rest of the country? The core support for 'Corbynism' simply isn't diverse enough to deliver power. Should anyone sell their should for power? Again, no. However being the most principled party in the world is no good if you can't actually enact a single piece of policy.

To move forward I think Labour simply have to try and reclaim part of the centre ground. Offer concessions where it is needed whilst maintaining a commitment to policy such as a proper living wage, a social housing building programme, a higher tax rate on the super high earners, a tightening of corporation tax rules and so on. I think it's perfectly possible to offer a clear alternative to Johnson, progressive policy and electable viability whilst resisting the urge to either entrench themselves where they are or usher in an era of neo-Blairism.

[Cataplana]

Disagree, the policies were a nonsense. Corbyn himself is an idiot and like Michael Foot before him he has delivered a massive right wing majority.
That’s the problem with socialism, there is never the right time for it or it’s not the right type of socialism. It exists only in theory. There are no working models of it anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Michael Foote and Jeremy Corbyn are the problem with socialism?

[Northernhibee]

Key policies have to be built up to. Talk about housing for a while, issues with housing and prices, attack the government on their failures with it then you announc your key policy on it.

You don’t just go “free broadband for all!” without that context as it sounds ridiculous.

[Ozyhibby]

What is there a working model for then? Is it for the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, the inequality in society getting bigger and disabled people being told their fit to work despite their doctor telling them otherwise. This country is a shameful example of how capitalism isn’t serving anyone other than those who are at the top end of the pay scale. You say there’s no model for socialism, but I would argue that what’s happening in France right now is a big swing towards the socialist model.
This country has now chosen a path based on one issue that will have consequences for all those people in working class areas that voted for it. Turkey’s have voted for Christmas.

Of course there are different paths available to the one England has taken for us. In their defence, a better path was not on the ballot paper down there.
There is much mention of Scandinavia when it comes to socialism on here. Scandinavia is probably more free market capitalist than here. They do however have higher taxation and provide more state services than here as well. I think that would be a better model than what we have here but it wasn’t on the ballot paper down south where decisions get taken.
The SNP are closer to the new Labour offer which is also a better model but again that was only on offer here and we don’t make the decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Key policies have to be built up to. Talk about housing for a while, issues with housing and prices, attack the government on their failures with it then you announc your key policy on it.

You don’t just go “free broadband for all!” without that context as it sounds ridiculous.

Very good point. That was a solution to a problem that people never knew existed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pontius pilate]

I was talking to a mate about the labour parties plan for re nationalising everything. Now this may seem a bit **** initially but instead of re nationalising it all why not set up a main government wing that sets up a communications transport utilities national company over a period of the term of government. The idea would be set up one every year and let the consumer choose wether they stay private or go national. Looking at alot of the interviews after it from the joe blogs on the street its corbyn and his cabinet to blame for labour's failures. I brought this up before the election if he fails what would happen I mean c'mon he went up against May failed he went up against Johnson who let's face it isnt exactly a shining light if virtue and failed. The guy and his cabinet are completely un electable

[Hibbyradge]

Key policies have to be built up to. Talk about housing for a while, issues with housing and prices, attack the government on their failures with it then you announc your key policy on it.

You don’t just go “free broadband for all!” without that context as it sounds ridiculous.

"Free broadband for all" reminded me of the myriad of ideas thought up by enthusiastic left wing students writing their campaign for President of the student's union.

While the manifesto had much that was laudable, overall it reminded me of one of those arm's length motions that the SWP or Militant used to put forward to TU conferences.

They were long unachievable wishlists designed to fail so they could tell the membership that their democratically arrived at demands had been ignored by the evil capitalist management. Everybody out, comrade, until we have free broadband for all.

While that wasn't the manifesto's intention, it really did look like some of it had been written by Wolfy, Tabitha and Imogen.

It's a nice enough idea, and most likely quite plausible, but it wasn't going to win a single vote and only served to make the party look just a wee bit more amateur.

[Colr]

"Free broadband for all" reminded me of the myriad of ideas thought up by enthusiastic left wing students writing their campaign for President of the student's union.

While the manifesto had much that was laudable, overall it reminded me of one of those arm's length motions that the SWP or Militant used to put forward to TU conferences.

They were long unachievable wishlists designed to fail so they could tell the membership that their democratically arrived at demands had been ignored by the evil capitalist management. Everybody out, comrade, until we have free broadband for all.

While that wasn't the manifesto's intention, it really did look like some of it had been written by Wolfy, Tabitha and Imogen.

It's a nice enough idea, and most likely quite plausible, but it wasn't going to win a single vote and only served to make the party look just a wee bit more amateur.
The public are smart enough to know that they will be paying for all this apparent largesse.

[Hibbyradge]

The public are smart enough to know that they will be paying for all this apparent largesse.

Yes, that too.

And those that don't realise it themselves, are being regularly reminded by the Tories and "their friends in the MSM" to coin another staple, but true, trot maxim.

[Cataplana]

The public are smart enough to know that they will be paying for all this apparent largesse.

What are we paying for at the moment. Like most working people 25% of what I earn goes to the government.

That's much higher than the USA, for example. What have we got to show for it?

I thought the Tories were good with money.

[Ozyhibby]

What are we paying for at the moment. Like most working people 25% of what I earn goes to the government.

That's much higher than the USA, for example. What have we got to show for it?

I thought the Tories were good with money.

A lot more than 25% goes to the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

What are we paying for at the moment. Like most working people 25% of what I earn goes to the government.

That's much higher than the USA, for example. What have we got to show for it?

I thought the Tories were good with money.

You wouldn’t have to experience much healthcare, and footing the bill for that care, before realising exactly what we get for that money - even under the Tories and after a decade of austerity.

[marinello59]

I’m a nationalist and independence is my overriding consideration when voting. Having said that I absolutely loved the labour manifesto and everything that Corbyn was saying during the election. Under normal circumstances without brexit and after years of Tory austerity I think that Corbyn might have won. I refuse to believe that all these seats in the traditional Labour heartlands would’ve voted Tory without the brexit issue clouding people’s opinion. Unlike many others I hope that Labour don’t change course and I hope that they continue in the same mould as they’ve done under Corbyn. The last thing this country needs is a new Labour type government which wouldn’t deliver the change this country needs. A similar approach with a slicker more polished leader is what’s needed not a change of policy.

I thought it was a good manifesto, one designed to deliver real change. Corbyn's weak leadership and Brexit meant it was always going to be a tough sell, hopefully they continue on a similar path policy wise though.

[Ozyhibby]

I thought it was a good manifesto, one designed to deliver real change. Corbyn's weak leadership and Brexit meant it was always going to be a tough sell, hopefully they continue on a similar path policy wise though.

Boris Johnson hopes they continue on a similar path as well.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

You wouldn’t have to experience much healthcare, and footing the bill for that care, before realising exactly what we get for that money - even under the Tories and after a decade of austerity.

Healthcare seems to be all that's on offer. People should expect more than that when a quarter of their wages go to the government

Corbyn was pointing out more should be available. Defeatists are saying "how will we pay for it?"

[Smartie]

Healthcare seems to be all that's on offer. People should expect more than that when a quarter of their wages go to the government

Corbyn was pointing out more should be available. Defeatists are saying "how will we pay for it?"

I don’t disagree.

But I do think it is easy to underestimate the cost/ value of healthcare, free at the point of delivery from a few weeks into pregnancy through until death in an ageing population.

It’s not being defeatist to acknowledge that it all needs to be paid for.

It’s also not unreasonable to ask questions and demand better.

[Cataplana]

I don’t disagree.

But I do think it is easy to underestimate the cost/ value of healthcare, free at the point of delivery from a few weeks into pregnancy through until death in an ageing population.

I think it is easy to over estimate it too. There is a big conversation to be had about healthcare in the UK.

When Bevan set the service up it wasn't meant to be a replacement for a full and productive life it was meant to enhance a full and productive life.

Yes we should ve demanding better, Corbyn has planted that seed. Eventually even the Yeomanry of middle England will realise they are being conned.

[Pretty Boy]

When it comes to taxation there surely has to be an acceptance that sometimes we get a lot for our money and sometimes not a lot?

In the last 2 and a half years I've had a baby box, the birth of a child, childhood immunisations, universal child benefit every month and child dental care. Add to that I've personally been tested and treated for skin cancer. In the coming years my daughter will get nursery hours, potentially FT in Scotland, and at least 11 years of education. Add to that the everyday things we don't really give a second thought to: bins emptied, communal green spaces maintained, roads gritted and so on. There also has to be a consideration that if we pay tax and NI to provide for pensions and other benefits for the elderly now then the working generation will carry that 'burden' as we age.

I'm aware that not all of that is paid out of one type of taxation. However, in the most simplistic terms, if I had to pay for all, or even some, of that out of my own pocket then I'd be far worse off than what I am paying tax at my current rate.

[Cataplana]

When it comes to taxation there surely has to be an acceptance that sometimes we get a lot for our money and sometimes not a lot?

In the last 2 and a half years I've had a baby box, the birth of a child, childhood immunisations, universal child benefit every month and child dental care. Add to that I've personally been tested and treated for skin cancer. In the coming years my daughter will get nursery hours, potentially FT in Scotland, and at least 11 years of education. Add to that the everyday things we don't really give a second thought to: bins emptied, communal green spaces maintained, roads gritted and so on. There also has to be a consideration that if we pay tax and NI to provide for pensions and other benefits for the elderly now then the working generation will carry that 'burden' as we age.

I'm aware that not all of that is paid out of one type of taxation. However, in the most simplistic terms, if I had to pay for all, or even some, of that out of my own pocket then I'd be far worse off than what I am paying tax at my current rate.

Of course we have to accept that the money is not always going to be spent on us.

What some of the people questioning Corbyns plans are guilty of us is accepting that the Tory line that the money isn't there .

After years of then mismanaging the economy (or managing it very well for their pals) people seem to have been ground down to accepting their lot.

Corbyn at least raised the possibility that they could have a better deal than they are settling for.

I'm reminded of a line in The Little World of Don Camullo. "They hate you because you are brave enough to stand up to things. It reminds them of what cowards they are."

Things don't have to be the way they are. Thankfully I live in Scotland and have a chance of changing things in a progressive way.

[Ozyhibby]

Healthcare seems to be all that's on offer. People should expect more than that when a quarter of their wages go to the government

Corbyn was pointing out more should be available. Defeatists are saying "how will we pay for it?"

Healthcare isn’t even the biggest item in the uk govt budget. It only takes up about 19%. Welfare takes up over 30% of the budget. Education is another 11%.
I think you are seriously underestimating what it costs to run this place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Disagree, the policies were a nonsense. Corbyn himself is an idiot and like Michael Foot before him he has delivered a massive right wing majority.
That’s the problem with socialism, there is never the right time for it or it’s not the right type of socialism. It exists only in theory. There are no working models of it anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then what are the NHS, welfare state and publicly run industries in Britain and abroad?

Many of Labour's manifesto policies were very popular; it seems the problems were Brexit and Corbyn's leadership. Traditional Labour voters in the north of England didn't vote Tory because they opposed free nursery places for all children, free social care and railways being taken back into public ownership. Their issues were Brexit and Corbyn.

[Cataplana]

Healthcare isn’t even the biggest item in the uk govt budget. It only takes up about 19%. Welfare takes up over 30% of the budget. Education is another 11%.
I think you are seriously underestimating what it costs to run this place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's get back on track, Corbyn suggested we could do better, I'm sure paying more attention to the sums (such as ensuring everyone pays their fair share of tax, giving and giving people more to aim for than a life on benefits, or as a professional NHS patient, could be better for the country.

We don't have to accept the way the Tories are running the country, however if we don't even imagine how things could be better then that's what we are doing.

[Ozyhibby]

Let's get back on track, Corbyn suggested we could do better, I'm sure paying more attention to the sums (such as ensuring everyone pays their fair share of tax, giving and giving people more to aim for than a life on benefits, or as a professional NHS patient, could be better for the country.

We don't have to accept the way the Tories are running the country, however if we don't even imagine how things could be better then that's what we are doing.

Totally agree we can do better. Corbyn just wasn’t offering that.
His solutions were almost child like. There was no detailed thought out plans. He wanted to nationalise trains but why not planes? Broadband but not gas supply? Surely the supply of food is too important to be left to the private sector? Why not nationalise that?
To pay for it all his plan was to raise taxes on billionaire? Why not cut taxes for billionaire and companies but also cut all the tax loopholes and deductions they make to raise more money? There was nothing smart about any of it. It was student politics level stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

Then what are the NHS, welfare state and publicly run industries in Britain and abroad?

Many of Labour's manifesto policies were very popular; it seems the problems were Brexit and Corbyn's leadership. Traditional Labour voters in the north of England didn't vote Tory because they opposed free nursery places for all children, free social care and railways being taken back into public ownership. Their issues were Brexit and Corbyn.

I think it has to be considered that even with a stronger showing in the heartlands and Scotland Labour would still have likely fallen short of a majority. To win elections Labour has, generally speaking, had to look outside it's traditional vote for support.

As was said above something like 'free broadband for all' (paraphrasing obviously) just looked like either a populist bribe or a solution to a problem no one was really talking about. There's a lot of people who sit in a centre ground that will happily flip flop between Tory and Labour. Do they oppose nursery places or free social care? Probably not in every instance but they may also be asking 'what am I getting return?' if they don't directly benefit.

I believe in a bottom up economic recovery. Give people more money in their pocket (through increased pay and better, free services) and they will spend it. However that might have to be pushed through with, as an example, a small tax break for small businesses and individuals who employ small numbers of people. Love them or loathe them, New Labour got those types on side. OK their share of the popular vote wasn't always comparable to Corbyn but they held onto traditional Labour seats whilst attracting support from outside that bubble. Wherever Labour goes from here there surely has to be a recognition that ideology has to be balanced with electoral pragmatism.

[Hibbyradge]

Wherever Labour goes from here there surely has to be a recognition that ideology has to be balanced with electoral pragmatism.

There absolutely has to be. Whether those with their hands on the party's reigns will do that is another matter altogether.

McDonnell has said he's standing down from the shadow cabinet so with him and Corbyn (eventually) gone, there's a great chance to put competent, believable people at the top of the party.

I just doubt they will.

PS Why hasn't Corbyn gone already? Is his ego so huge that he won't accept any part in his party's terrible performance, the worst for 100 years?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Totally agree we can do better. Corbyn just wasn’t offering that.
His solutions were almost child like. There was no detailed thought out plans. He wanted to nationalise trains but why not planes? Broadband but not gas supply? Surely the supply of food is too important to be left to the private sector? Why not nationalise that?
To pay for it all his plan was to raise taxes on billionaire? Why not cut taxes for billionaire and companies but also cut all the tax loopholes and deductions they make to raise more money? There was nothing smart about any of it. It was student politics level stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a strange post. It's about priorities; clearly trains are more important in relation to travel and infrastructure than planes. Trains, like buses, are public transport - a public service which should be publicly owned. We have a ridiculous situation whereby the Italian, French and German railways, which are publicly owned, are running some of our train franchises. Lots of countries do have a publicly owned airline, by the way. Food is entirely different: there are a million varieties, many of which can be produced very cheaply. There aren't a million railway lines.

'Why not cut taxes for billionaires'? Are you being serious?

Labour's manifesto was fully costed; in fact it wasn't just a manifesto, it was a ten year plan to modernise our infrastructure, save our public services, improve wages and reduce inequality. That isn't 'student politics', which in itself a slur used by the right whenever big ideas are proposed. No doubt the same charge was made in 1945, when the Labour government said it would create free healthcare for all, a universal welfare state, build two million council houses, create full employment, and nationalise coal, water and electricity.....that worked out rather well actually.

[Cataplana]

There absolutely has to be. Whether those with their hands on the party's reigns will do that is another matter altogether.

McDonnell has said he's standing down from the shadow cabinet so with him and Corbyn (eventually) gone, there's a great chance to put competent, believable people at the top of the party.

I just doubt they will.

PS Why hasn't Corbyn gone already? Is his ego so huge that he won't accept any part in his party's terrible performance, the worst for 100 years?

If standing in the centre ground was so successful, why are we where we are now?

For one thing, people in the Blyth Valley wouldn't be saying, "why bother, they are all the same?"

It was the Blairite abandonment of such places that led to Brexit, and in turn has led to so many of their voters supporting the Blue Tories over the Red Tories.

[Hibernia&Alba]

If standing in the centre ground was so successful, why are we where we are now?

For one thing, people in the Blyth Valley wouldn't be saying, "why bother, they are all the same?"

It was the Blairite abandonment of such places that led to Brexit, and in turn has led to so many of their voters supporting the Blue Tories over the Red Tories.

Indeed, neoliberal globalisation has decimated many traditional working class areas, which has created enormous anger. That anger was expressed, wrongly, in my opinion, against the EU. Those same areas are the ones which will be hurt most by Brexit. New Labour fundamentally accepted most of Thatcherism/Reaganomics, which left many Labour voters feeling abandoned. It was very successful at first, as a means to win power, but voters came to realise that things didn't change much in those areas. That's why the SNP was able to wipe out a once completely dominant Labour in Scotland.

[Hibbyradge]

If standing in the centre ground was so successful, why are we where we are now?

For one thing, people in the Blyth Valley wouldn't be saying, "why bother, they are all the same?"

It was the Blairite abandonment of such places that led to Brexit, and in turn has led to so many of their voters supporting the Blue Tories over the Red Tories.

Ridiculous arguments.

We're where we are now because Corbyn and the left in Labour were so out of sync with the electorate, that despite facing a government which was tearing itself apart in full view of everyone, they returned the worst election results in a century.

Blair didn't abandon anyone. Corbyn's mob just lost Sedgefield, FFS!

Red Tories, Blue Tories, Jesus, grow up.

The working class were so desperate for a proper left wing Labour party that when offered the chance to vote for one, they voted Tory instead.

[marinello59]

There absolutely has to be. Whether those with their hands on the party's reigns will do that is another matter altogether.

McDonnell has said he's standing down from the shadow cabinet so with him and Corbyn (eventually) gone, there's a great chance to put competent, believable people at the top of the party.

I just doubt they will.

PS Why hasn't Corbyn gone already? Is his ego so huge that he won't accept any part in his party's terrible performance, the worst for 100 years?

Not only has he not gone he has not apologised to the people who he has let down. I can only assume he is staying in office to protect the momentum project and ensure that they keep a tight grip of the party.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Ridiculous arguments.

We're where we are now because Corbyn and the left in Labour were so out of sync with the electorate, that despite facing a government which was tearing itself apart in full view of everyone, they returned the worst election results in a century.

Blair didn't abandon anyone. Corbyn's mob just lost Sedgefield, FFS!

Red Tories, Blue Tories, jerseys, grow up.

The working class were do desperate for a proper left wing Labour party that when offered the chance to vote for one, they voted Tory instead.

Not because they oppose rail nationalisation, free social care, ending student tuition fees and higher wages. They voted Tory for Brexit and because they didn't like Corbyn personally. Ask them about the policies, and they were very popular in traditional Labour areas. Many of the things they want, we already have in Scotland!

[Tomsk]

Useful information on this website:

https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm#indicator-chart

The UK tends to trend about half way against other OECD nations and in general a little lower than the average on most metrics.

The UK spends most of its money on social security, health and education.

[Hibbyradge]

Not because they oppose rail nationalisation, free social care, ending student tuition fees and higher wages. They voted Tory for Brexit and because they didn't like Corbyn personally. Ask them about the policies, and they were very popular in traditional Labour areas. Many of the things they want, we already have in Scotland!

I agree. Corbyn, and to a lesser extent McDonnell, were huge bogeymen. The Tories thought Corbyn was a joke, but they were genuinely scared of McDonnell.

Labour don't need to move far from where they are politically, but they need leaders who are competent and palatable to the electorate.

The Corbyn experiment was doomed from the start as most onlookers said at the time.

[Hibrandenburg]

If it is fair to say that the Brexit vote was a response to austerity, then the government in power has to either come up with an alternative to austerity, now that Brexit Has Been Done. However they can also come up with an alternative excuse for it.

Namely that Brexit was the right path, but because of the lefties they are years behind schedule.

I hope that "getting Brexit done" equates to some improvement in people's minds, and that they haven't been ground down to the extent that they just want to drag everyone down to their level.

I think you're underestimating their talent at constantly finding a scapegoat for their inadequacies.

[Tomsk]

If standing in the centre ground was so successful, why are we where we are now?

For one thing, people in the Blyth Valley wouldn't be saying, "why bother, they are all the same?"

It was the Blairite abandonment of such places that led to Brexit, and in turn has led to so many of their voters supporting the Blue Tories over the Red Tories.

I'm really getting mixed messages here. Or are you being ironic?

[Smartie]

There absolutely has to be. Whether those with their hands on the party's reigns will do that is another matter altogether.

McDonnell has said he's standing down from the shadow cabinet so with him and Corbyn (eventually) gone, there's a great chance to put competent, believable people at the top of the party.

I just doubt they will.

PS Why hasn't Corbyn gone already? Is his ego so huge that he won't accept any part in his party's terrible performance, the worst for 100 years?

You mention “competent, believable people” in your post, and this is where they have a big problem.

Who are these people and where are they going to come from?

In the past, the opposition would have great strength in depth. You would know the shadow cabinet well and if the leader were to leave then you could imagine often 7 or 8 people who would be capable of stepping up.

Most of the credible candidates have either left the party or left politics altogether. The credibility of the likes of Chuka Umunna will be shot after his drifting around over the past few years.

Their demise in Scotland will have massively harmed them. Scotland was always a strong breeding ground for solid Labour politicians. The people who might have been future senior figures of the Labour Party 40-50 years ago will now be joining the SNP.

[BroxburnHibee]

Wherever Labour goes from here there surely has to be a recognition that ideology has to be balanced with electoral pragmatism.

Alistair Campbell pointed out that at the end of this term it will be 50 years since any Labour leader apart from his pal has won an election.

That should at least provide a clue as to what kind of Labour party voters want.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat about Iraq (and that is a massive black mark against Blairs time) it cant be denied the job he did following on from the man who would have won I believe. John Smith.

The best PM we never had sadly.

[Cataplana]

Totally agree we can do better. Corbyn just wasn’t offering that.
His solutions were almost child like. There was no detailed thought out plans. He wanted to nationalise trains but why not planes? Broadband but not gas supply? Surely the supply of food is too important to be left to the private sector? Why not nationalise that?
To pay for it all his plan was to raise taxes on billionaire? Why not cut taxes for billionaire and companies but also cut all the tax loopholes and deductions they make to raise more money? There was nothing smart about any of it. It was student politics level stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I felt that campaign was about damage limitation. The only positive would be to plant a seed in people's head that they could expect better.

If Labour was worth a button, they would now have a plan to attack Jonson just as soon as the penny drops that Brexit is not the promised land.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not only has he not gone he has not apologised to the people who he has let down. I can only assume he is staying in office to protect the momentum project and ensure that they keep a tight grip of the party.

Corbyn is legendary for not being the sharpest knife in the box. He basically indulged himself and his romantic notions of being the poetic warrior of justice for the oppressed and the poor, especially in other countries. All while enjoying the privilege of a safe Labour seat and the support of the national party, despite voting against it some 400-500 times when it was in government.

He is a puppet. He is staying in office because the puppet masters like Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman need time to work out their strategy to replace him with someone else in line with their views.

It took years to dig Labour out of a morass in the eighties and arguably, it was easier then than it is now.

[Hibbyradge]

You mention “competent, believable people” in your post, and this is where they have a big problem.

Who are these people and where are they going to come from?

In the past, the opposition would have great strength in depth. You would know the shadow cabinet well and if the leader were to leave then you could imagine often 7 or 8 people who would be capable of stepping up.

Most of the credible candidates have either left the party or left politics altogether. The credibility of the likes of Chuka Umunna will be shot after his drifting around over the past few years.

Their demise in Scotland will have massively harmed them. Scotland was always a strong breeding ground for solid Labour politicians. The people who might have been future senior figures of the Labour Party 40-50 years ago will now be joining the SNP.

Keir Starmer would be a good start...

[Cataplana]

It took years to dig Labour out of a morass in the eighties and arguably, it was easier then than it is now.

I don't think Corbyn's manifesto was anything like as radical as Foote's. I don't think Johnson has Thatcher's abilities. Success , or failure of a post Brexit economy lies on the Tories shoulders.

All in all, I see many reasons to be optimistic that Labour can get elected in five years. If nothing else, the Tories have had 10 years to fix the "mess" and have made an utter cock up of it.

[RyeSloan]

I felt that campaign was about damage limitation. The only positive would be to plant a seed in people's head that they could expect better.

If Labour was worth a button, they would now have a plan to attack Jonson just as soon as the penny drops that Brexit is not the promised land.

Plan to attack them on something that’s not even happened yet?

What if resolving Brexit actually stabilises the country and leads to an upturn in the economy and investment?

As for the line that Labour didn’t lose because of their mega popular policies but only because of Brexit....well there are two things there. 1) a defeat on the scale they suffered just doesn’t make that a credible argument. Their policies and manifesto were not popular and if fact so unpopular they were handed a historic defeat 2) If Brexit was the deal breaker why did they have such a ridiculous and incoherent approach to it?

Some people may believe the mass nationalisation of swathes of UK industry was a great idea. Others will be fully aware that governments are rarely capable of being efficient and seriously doubted their ability to completely run and manage such things.

Then others would have seen the likes of McDonnell supporting the re introduction of the right to sympathy strike and the like and would have realised that putting all of that in the hands of Len McCluskey and his pals was not exactly the type of change they fancied.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/1205610758933008384


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

The Boris Johnson govt will be equally extreme as any govt lead by Corbyn. The only difference is his will be right wing rather than left wing. Whatever anyone's Brexit views are, the position that the Labour Party took was never going to fly. Lacked political credibility. Corbyn's strengths were getting the small things right rather than the big things. He has built his career on being principled and doing what he believes to be the right thing to do, with the parameters of being popular or whether there are votes in it, being secondary or more distant concerns. That stance aligns to being an influencer or even an agitator, but not to being a leader. The wider concerns for politics in the UK I think, is that the middle ground has gone, and perhaps for longer than 5 years. The BNP , UKIP and the Brexit Party are the Conservative's very own Momentum in what now looks like their natural home.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Keir Starmer would be a good start...

I think Starmer will be favourite, but of course it will be down to the membership, who may prefer a younger, more radical leader such as Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy or Angela Rayner. I think all could do a very good job.

[Ozyhibby]

I think Starmer will be favourite, but of course it will be down to the membership, who may prefer a younger, more radical leader such as Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy or Angela Rayner. I think all could do a very good job.

I think the next leader will be female.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

The next leader will be Starmer.

[G B Young]

I think Starmer will be favourite, but of course it will be down to the membership, who may prefer a younger, more radical leader such as Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy or Angela Rayner. I think all could do a very good job.

The reason Corbyn is hanging around is in the hope of finding another Corbyn to replace him. Somebody who can drive the party further into the wilderness.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

The reason Corbyn is hanging around is in the hope of finding another Corbyn to replace him. Somebody who can drive the party further into the wilderness.

The interview just given by John MacDonald on Andrew Marr validates this argument. I think this will be the outcome irrespective of the intention.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1206126669616107521


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

The reason Corbyn is hanging around is in the hope of finding another Corbyn to replace him. Somebody who can drive the party further into the wilderness.

I don't think that will happen. The likes of John McDonnell and Diane Abbott won't be on the front bench. As I said earlier, perhaps they will go for a younger generation. I've been very impressed with Angela Rayner during the last few months. She has shown that you don't need to be Oxbridge educated, or even university educated, to be an intelligent and articulate politician. From Stockport, she left school at sixteen and became a care worker. She is someone who can relate to the struggles of those communities in the north which went Tory. I hope she has a go at it.

[G B Young]

I don't think that will happen. The likes of John McDonnell and Diane Abbott won't be on the front bench. As I said earlier, perhaps they will go for a younger generation. I've been very impressed with Angela Rayner during the last few months. She has shown that you don't need to be Oxbridge educated, or even university educated, to be an intelligent and articulate politician. From Stockport, she left school at sixteen and became a care worker. She is someone who can relate to the struggles of those communities in the north which went Tory. I hope she has a go at it.

For Labour's sake it shouldn't happen but Corbyn himself wouldn't have had a sniff of the leadership if wasn't for the change in voting rules for party members. In fact IIRC he only just scraped enough parliamentary nominations to stand at all. Len McCluskey already appears to me laying the groundwork for Corbyn mark 2 and for these sort of hard-left devotees the ideology appears to come before electability. If the 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' brigade remain wedded to this mirthless Marxist dogma and commit to another leader of that ilk then a return to power will remain nothing more than a dream.

[Hibernia&Alba]

For Labour's sake it shouldn't happen but Corbyn himself wouldn't have had a sniff of the leadership if wasn't for the change in voting rules for party members. In fact IIRC he only just scraped enough parliamentary nominations to stand at all. Len McCluskey already appears to me laying the groundwork for Corbyn mark 2 and for these sort of hard-left devotees the ideology appears to come before electability. If the 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' brigade remain wedded to this mirthless Marxist dogma and commit to another leader of that ilk then a return to power will remain nothing more than a dream.

Come on now, Corbyn is not a Marxist. Incidentally, Marx is still relevant to any critique of capitalism, particularly its neoliberalism variant, which has been dominant for forty years now. You should give him a read :wink:

[G B Young]

Come on now, Corbyn is not a Marxist. Incidentally, Marx is still relevant to any critique of capitalism, particularly its neoliberalism variant, which has been dominant for forty years now. You should give him a read :wink:

Any recommendations? I've only read the Communist Manifesto.

Whether or not Corbyn himself is a Marxist, some of those closest to him identify as such (eg McDonnell and Milne) and I'm just not convinced that sort of voter-unfriendly thinking will be swept away in the wake of Labour's election rout.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Any recommendations? I've only read the Communist Manifesto.

Whether or not Corbyn himself is a Marxist, some of those closest to him identify as such (eg McDonnell and Milne) and I'm just not convinced that sort of voter-unfriendly thinking will be swept away in the wake of Labour's election rout.

An excellent book is The Structure of Marx's World View, by John McMurty, Princeton Books, 1978. It covers all the important ideas in clear language.

Jonathan Sperber's biography of Marx is very good, as it not only covers his life story but tracks the significant developments in his thought, following the evolution of his overall philosophy.

Both are highly recommended.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Any recommendations? I've only read the Communist Manifesto.

Whether or not Corbyn himself is a Marxist, some of those closest to him identify as such (eg McDonnell and Milne) and I'm just not convinced that sort of voter-unfriendly thinking will be swept away in the wake of Labour's election rout.


I suspect that you are using the distance from the Conservative Party to make the, pointless,jibe about Marxism, rather than the distance from the centre.

[Mibbes Aye]

An excellent book is The Structure of Marx's World View, by John McMurty, Princeton Books, 1978. It covers all the important ideas in clear language.

Jonathan Sperber's biography of Marx is very good, as it not only covers his life story but tracks the significant developments in his thought, following the evolution of his overall philosophy.

Both are highly recommended.

Francis Wheen’s biography of Marx is impeccably researched and shines a light on the man, as much as his philosophy and beliefs.

Second-best biography I have ever read.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Francis Wheen’s biography of Marx is impeccably researched and shines a light on the man, as much as his philosophy and beliefs.

Second-best biography I have ever read.

I haven't read it, mate, though I've heard very good things about it. Marx was a gentle, warm, humane person, and not the hate-filled bogeyman the contemporary right paint him, though I'm sure almost all of them have never read a word he wrote. He was full of kindness and compassion, which I'm sure Wheen's biography also brings out, and Marx cannot be blamed for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other genocidal lunatics who appropriated his work, in the way his enemies try to suggest. It's akin to blaming Christ for the Inquisition and the Reformation.

By the way, what is the top rated biography you've read, if Wheen's book is second?

[Mibbes Aye]

I haven't read it, mate, though I've heard very good things about it. Marx was a gentle, warm, humane person, and not the hate-filled bogeyman the contemporary right paint him, though I'm sure almost all of them have never read a word he wrote. He was full of kindness and compassion, which I'm sure Wheen's biography also brings out, and Marx cannot be blamed for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other genocidal lunatics who appropriated his work, in the way his enemies try to suggest. It's akin to blaming Christ for the Inquisition and the Reformation.

By the way, what is the top rated biography you've read, if Wheen's book is second?

Marx was quite the character in his personal life, which Wheen brings out. Like you say, it dispels any suggestion of him being some sort of dogmatic polemicist, he was a human being with all the foibles, failings and fears that any other human being might have. Wheen is also sympathetic to Engels, who comes across well, and a real friend to Marx in difficult times.

The best biography I have read is Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson. It is in five volumes, although he hasn’t finished and published the fifth one yet. It is an utterly compelling account of a man who was flawed, a master political manipulator but someone who still had a sense of virtue and civic duty in his soul. The biography details how that struggle played out.

To say it is well-researched is like saying Real Madrid are a stronger team than Hawick Royal Albert. The first volume starts, IIRC, describing LBJ’s great-great grandfather and how he influenced the family and how that eventually affected LBJ. After four volumes you are only just beyond the point of him assuming the presidency following JFK’s death and passing the landmark civil rights legislation. Volume five I imagine will focus on Vietnam and Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election.

The middle volumes focus on Johnson and his incredible ability to power-broke, both in his home state of Texas and in Congress, as an aide, a congressman and a senator. It is enthralling reading and meticulous in its detail.

[Ozyhibby]

I haven't read it, mate, though I've heard very good things about it. Marx was a gentle, warm, humane person, and not the hate-filled bogeyman the contemporary right paint him, though I'm sure almost all of them have never read a word he wrote. He was full of kindness and compassion, which I'm sure Wheen's biography also brings out, and Marx cannot be blamed for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other genocidal lunatics who appropriated his work, in the way his enemies try to suggest. It's akin to blaming Christ for the Inquisition and the Reformation.

By the way, what is the top rated biography you've read, if Wheen's book is second?

Has anyone ever appropriated his work correctly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Marx was quite the character in his personal life, which Wheen brings out. Like you say, it dispels any suggestion of him being some sort of dogmatic polemicist, he was a human being with all the foibles, failings and fears that any other human being might have. Wheen is also sympathetic to Engels, who comes across well, and a real friend to Marx in difficult times.

The best biography I have read is Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson. It is in five volumes, although he hasn’t finished and published the fifth one yet. It is an utterly compelling account of a man who was flawed, a master political manipulator but someone who still had a sense of virtue and civic duty in his soul. The biography details how that struggle played out.

To say it is well-researched is like saying Real Madrid are a stronger team than Hawick Royal Albert. The first volume starts, IIRC, describing LBJ’s great-great grandfather and how he influenced the family and how that eventually affected LBJ. After four volumes you are only just beyond the point of him assuming the presidency following JFK’s death and passing the landmark civil rights legislation. Volume five I imagine will focus on Vietnam and Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election.

The middle volumes focus on Johnson and his incredible ability to power-broke, both in his home state of Texas and in Congress, as an aide, a congressman and a senator. It is enthralling reading and meticulous in its detail.

I read a single volume biography of LBJ some time back, by Irwin Unger which was a tad disappointing, in my opinion. I really don't think I'm interested enough in LBJ to read five volumes; however my favourite biography is also a five volume goliath: Dostoevsky, by Joseph Frank, which is a massive portrait of the man is who is probably my favourite ever writer. There is a superb 1000 page single volume abridged version available, by Princeton.

As you seem to enjoy huge tomes, do take a look at Issac Deutscher's three volume biography of Trostky, if you haven't already. It's 1500 pages of magnificence, now available in a single volume, by Verso Books. It's a close contender.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Has anyone ever appropriated his work correctly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my most humble opinion, it's very rare. Marx advocated that those who work in any organisation should run it democratically themselves, which certainly hasn't happened in any 'communist' state I know of. Perhaps the Paris Commune of 1871, which is the only political cause Marx overtly supported in his lifetime, is the nearest, along with the anarchist experiment in parts of Spain in 1935-37. He never advocated totalitarianism - just the reverse in fact. It was about mass democracy, taking power from the centre.

[Mibbes Aye]

I read a single volume biography of LBJ some time back, by Urwin Unger which was a tad disappointing, in my opinion. I really don't think I'm interested enough in LBJ to read five volumes; however my favourite biography is also a five volume goliath: Dostoevsky, by Joseph Frank, which is a massive portrait of the man is who is probably my favourite ever writer. There is a superb 1000 page single volume abridged version available, by Princeton.

As you seem to enjoy huge tomes, do take a look at Issac Deutscher's three volume biography of Trostky, if you haven't already. It's 1500 pages of magnificence, now available in a single volume, by Verso Books. It's a close contender.

I will look at getting the Deutscher. Likewise the Joseph Frank, as I also am fond of Dostoevsky. If you like Russian writers, have you read any Nikolai Gogol? Incredibly funny but absurd/surreal. He predates Dostoevsky by a couple of decades or so.

[Hibrandenburg]

In my most humble opinion, it's very rare. Marx advocated that those who work in any organisation should run it democratically themselves, which certainly hasn't happened in any 'communist' state I know of. Perhaps the Paris Commune of 1871, which is the only political cause Marx overtly supported in his lifetime, is the nearest, along with the anarchist experiment in parts of Spain in 1935-37. He never advocated totalitarianism - just the reverse in fact. It was about mass democracy, taking power from the centre.

In Germany we have elected works councils in most companies. I know it's not the same as running the company but the co-determination rights are strong and companies can't do anything before gaining permission of the employee representatives beforehand. It works well and the engagement between company and employee very high.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I will look at getting the Deutscher. Likewise the Joseph Frank, as I also am fond of Dostoevsky. If you like Russian writers, have you read any Nikolai Gogol? Incredibly funny but absurd/surreal. He predates Dostoevsky by a couple of decades or so.

I love the Russian greats and read them more than any others.

I've read Dead Souls and a few of Gogol's short stories, which I enjoyed very much. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are the pinnacle of fiction for me, though the short stories of Chekhov and Pushkin push them close. There is something about the great Russian writers which allows them to explore the human condition best of all, in my opinion. There are other of course, such as the Norwegian, Knut Hamsun and the Czech, Franz Kafka, and the Algerian-Frenchman, Albert Camus; but it seems to be a national talent of Russians to get to the nub of what human existence may be about.

[Hibernia&Alba]

In Germany we have elected works councils in most companies. I know it's not the same as running the company but the co-determination rights are strong and companies can't do anything before gaining permission of the employee representatives beforehand. It works well and the engagement between company and employee very high.

And just look at the strength of the German economy!

[Mibbes Aye]

I love the Russian greats and read them more than any others.

I've read Dead Souls and a few of Gogol's short stories, which I enjoyed very much. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are the pinnacle of fiction for me, though the short stories of Chekhov and Pushkin push them close. There is something about the great Russian writers which allows them to explore the human condition best of all, in my opinion. There are other of course, such as the Norwegian, Knut Hamsun and the Czech, Franz Kafka, and the Algerian-Frenchman, Albert Camus; but it seems to be a national talent of Russians to get to the nub of what human existence may be about.

I know we are going off-topic here, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. Even in translation, Russian writers speak to the heart and the soul.

I am just belatedly finishing Sholokhov’s “And Quiet Flows the Don”, which is broadly similar to “War and Peace” but set amongst the Cossack people around the time of WW1.

Bulgakov’s “The Master and Marguerita” is another classic, lampooning Stalinism but in the absurd/surrealist style.

Should be on the school curriculum but sadly I don’t think that will ever come about.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I know we are going off-topic here, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. Even in translation, Russian writers speak to the heart and the soul.

I am just belatedly finishing Sholokhov’s “And Quiet Flows the Don”, which is broadly similar to “War and Peace” but set amongst the Cossack people around the time of WW1.

Bulgakov’s “The Master and Marguerita” is another classic, lampooning Stalinism but in the absurd/surrealist style.

Should be on the school curriculum but sadly I don’t think that will ever come about.

Try Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate as a companion to War and Peace. Set during the battle of Stalingrad in World War Two, it is a true epic. His novel Everything Flows is also a great exploration of the inhumanity of Stalinism. Twentieth century updates of his great predecessors.

[G B Young]

An excellent book is The Structure of Marx's World View, by John McMurty, Princeton Books, 1978. It covers all the important ideas in clear language.

Jonathan Sperber's biography of Marx is very good, as it not only covers his life story but tracks the significant developments in his thought, following the evolution of his overall philosophy.

Both are highly recommended.

Cheers. Maybe not for Christmas holiday reading, but I'll try to check them out. Been meaning to visit that huge new bookshop that's opened at the top of Leith Walk in the old Dofos shop.

[lapsedhibee]

Cheers. Maybe not for Christmas holiday reading, but I'll try to check them out. Been meaning to visit that huge new bookshop that's opened at the top of Leith Walk in the old Dofos shop.

Old RBS I think.

[G B Young]

Old RBS I think.

Ah yes, you're right. I went past it on the bus the other day and it looks massive.

Is Dofos still there then? I seem to recall it closed some time ago.

[Pretty Boy]

Ah yes, you're right. I went past it on the bus the other day and it looks massive.

Is Dofos still there then? I seem to recall it closed some time ago.

Dofos is an architects office now.

Dofos now have a shop on Leith Walk and one in Morningside.