Harman's Labour 'rebellion'

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There is an element of truth in your post but it is a bit like comparing the sublime with the ridiculous!

Most of us are fed up with politically correct language and the hectoring party politics, but to suggest that economically illiterate policies and Michael Foot policies are the answer is like living in some fairy tale world that only exists in immature imaginations.

If any politician really wants to tackle poverty in this country, the first thing they need to understand is the need to create wealth and then direct it wisely.

Unfortunately, Left wing politicians seem to be hell bent on following the politics of envy, and all that will lead to is bail outs from the IMF and heartbreaking scenes on TV such as we have seen happening in Greece.

I haven't said anything on his competence, just that I quite like him and politics could do with more people like him in it. Interesting that you mention his economic ideas though seeing as a whole heap of economists are backing him and his ideas are strangely in tune with the IMF's austerity thinking


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...es-corbynomics

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You just don't get it, the public is sick of party politics, sick of these clones that say nothing and do even less, sick of their shyster deals and ways, how much attention would this contest have got if Corbyn wasn't involved? I hope this is the start of a revolution in politics, they keep saying politics needs to reconnect with the people, it can start by having interesting, principled people at the heart of it, not these Blair clones that'd sell out their mothers and others peoples childrens blood for a bag of cash and a whiff of power.

Well we'll see if the public go for him at the General Election. I don't actually think the public care that much until an election is actually upon us and usually just go about their lives without worrying about the internal dynamics of a leadership election.

What I would say though is that their voting patten suggests that they don't much like socialism. Ed Miliband was perceived as being left-wing and got trounced. Time and time again Labour have been punished for this wild swings to the left so I don't see what will be different this time. All of that is without the position Corbyn takes on the Falklands or NATO.

None of this addresses my point though. How will Corbyn be able to win an Election or even make much of an influence? How is he going to unite the party behind him. People may be sick of party politics but that is still the system we have and the biggest backbench rebel in the Labour party is now expecting the loyalty of the Parliamentary Party when he himself was incapable of doing the same.

As for the coming revolution in politics. I remember having the same discussions about UKIP a few months ago. The revolution is always coming it just turns out not to reach anyone outside of the echo-chamber of the Internet and campaigning groups.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well we'll see if the public go for him at the General Election. I don't actually think the public care that much until an election is actually upon us and usually just go about their lives without worrying about the internal dynamics of a leadership election.

If he wasn't involved no one would be interested, how much interest did the lib dem leadership contest garner in the press

What I would say though is that their voting patten suggests that they don't much like socialism. Ed Miliband was perceived as being left-wing and got trounced. Time and time again Labour have been punished for this wild swings to the left so I don't see what will be different this time. All of that is without the position Corbyn takes on the Falklands or NATO.

Ed was a geek who couldn't get his message across, people had to rely on perception as he didn't tell them it properly or concisely

None of this addresses my point though. How will Corbyn be able to win an Election or even make much of an influence? How is he going to unite the party behind him. People may be sick of party politics but that is still the system we have and the biggest backbench rebel in the Labour party is now expecting the loyalty of the Parliamentary Party when he himself was incapable of doing the same.

He's already having an influence, Burnham said the other day he'd have as part of his team if he won

As for the coming revolution in politics. I remember having the same discussions about UKIP a few months ago. The revolution is always coming it just turns out not to reach anyone outside of the echo-chamber of the Internet and campaigning groups.

That'd be UKIP that got millions of votes, I bet Dave, Tony, Nick and their ilk wished they didn't reach anyone outside of the internet, their day is coming to an end fast.

Yes, that 1 UKIP Parliamentary seat, along with the 1 Green seat, has them quaking in their shoes.....

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

If he wasn't involved no one would be interested, how much interest did the lib dem leadership contest garner in the press

Interested doesn't translate to electoral success. People are interested in spectacular car crashes. Everyone is following this because it seems crazy that Labour will appoint someone as leader who seems unelectable to the population at large.

Ed was a geek who couldn't get his message across, people had to rely on perception as he didn't tell them it properly or concisely

Foot? Kinnock? Labour has only really achieved modern success when they've gone for a centrist platform. The Unions appointed Ed Miliband and his dalliance with moving Labour to the left failed in a pretty brutal fashion. Even if we assume this wasn't because of the platform itself but a lack of confidence in the leader how is this going to work with Corbyn? He doesn't appear to come across as a safe pair of hands.

He's already having an influence, Burnham said the other day he'd have as part of his team if he won

I mean more as party leader. He is clearly having an influence on the party given that he is poised to win the contest. However how will he get the support of his MPs?

What is he going to do when this hype and energy dies down and he has to be at PMQs facing the PM?

What will he do when people bring up Northern Ireland where he wants a United Ireland?

What will he do when people bring up the Falklands with which he wants to share sovereignty with Argentina?

What will he do when the press properly goes after him on the connections to Islamic hate preachers, anti-Semites and the IRA?

This is a guy who has had no senior position in party, has no history of being able to do the type of dealing making and politics required, hasn't got his Parliamentary party behind him and has no end of interesting things in his past for the Tories and the press to go after him with.

Maybe I am wrong and the stright-talking image will carry him on but at the moment I can't see him surviving until the next election let alone winning it.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Ed was a geek who couldn't get his message across, people had to rely on perception as he didn't tell them it properly or concisely

That's why I think David Cameron won the election as convincingly as he did. Not because people like him, or agree with his policies, but because the two main opposition leaders (at the time Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband) totally failed to communicate any alternatives. Either party could have come up with a solution to the countrys economic problems that would have ensured prosperity for all, but we wouldn't have know as they totally failed to communicate anything resembling a policy. Especially as the previous government has spent a surprising amount of the last five years seemingly victimising the poor, while helping the rich to get richer.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I disagree with your view that Labour have to follow Conservative policies to get elected. What they need to have is an appropriate balance between the need to encourage wealth creation and the need to look after those who are unable to cope in modern Britain.

Labour just cannot seem to get the balance right. Until they come up with a workable economic strategy and a better understanding of how important it is to direct appropriate levels of resources into appropriate means of helping our own less fortunate, they will be a long time in the wilderness.

The Corbyn route will just leave us even more unable to help those who need it because there will be no money to support them.

In both the 1979 and 2010 elections, a helpful Labour chappie told the incoming Administration that there was no money left. What does that tell you about Labour's vision?

you seem to have been brought into the myth that labour were spending out of control.

prior to the bank bailout they had a lower deficit than the previous tory government had. All the money went to the banks.

The bank situation was a global problem, but the UK was especially affected due to our softy approach to banks and dependency on the financial sector.

This bank bailout the tories supported, which funny enough I pointed out in the post you replied to.

---------- Post added at 10:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There is an element of truth in your post but it is a bit like comparing the sublime with the ridiculous!

Most of us are fed up with politically correct language and the hectoring party politics, but to suggest that economically illiterate policies and Michael Foot policies are the answer is like living in some fairy tale world that only exists in immature imaginations.

If any politician really wants to tackle poverty in this country, the first thing they need to understand is the need to create wealth and then direct it wisely.

Unfortunately, Left wing politicians seem to be hell bent on following the politics of envy, and all that will lead to is bail outs from the IMF and heartbreaking scenes on TV such as we have seen happening in Greece.

By wealth creation do you mean looking after the desires of the rich and then having a false belief the wealth trickles down?

In a society with no tax and welfare e.g. where nature is left to do its course we will have what we had in medieval times, lords in a castle and slaves tendering to their fields etc. In that sort of society of course the weak are left to die as there is nothing to take care of them.

---------- Post added at 10:37 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, that 1 UKIP Parliamentary seat, along with the 1 Green seat, has them quaking in their shoes.....

of course the anti democratic voting system has kept the status quo intact.

In a PR system the greens and UKIP would have dozens of seats between them.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you seem to have been brought into the myth that labour were spending out of control.

prior to the bank bailout they had a lower deficit than the previous tory government had. All the money went to the banks.

The bank situation was a global problem, but the UK was especially affected due to our softy approach to banks and dependency on the financial sector.

This bank bailout the tories supported, which funny enough I pointed out in the post you replied to.
.

Bank bailouts are NOT included in any debt or deficit figures.
Deficit 1997 £5.7bn, 2007(ie before any bank issues) £40.9bn, jumping to £100.8bn a year later and £153.5bn in 2009. And that had been going on for a few years before, starting in 2001. Why over £200bn in borrowing before 2008, when the economy is supposedly doing so well? We are now looking at paying out in the years to come, well over £50bn each year just in debt interest.

[Ignitionnet]

What killed Labour was how thin and precarious the tax base was, not their spending so much.

That did grow counter-cyclically though, and for sure a bunch of it wasn't efficient.

The big crime was, rather than rebalancing the economy, splurging the City cash. Labour were really bad for industry and their spending plans hugely dependent on the banking sector. So when that went belly up....

Certainly the accusations that they were spending out of control are unfair. Likewise anyone saying that Labour weren't disastrous for the economy is being somewhat disingenuous. Labour's economic plans were geared for electoral gain and the difficult decisions were avoided.

Alongside that there was a big streak of, oddly, corporatism. The gold was sold at rock-bottom prices to prop up the financial sector.

Slower and more sustainable growth, both economically and in spending, would've been preferable. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

What killed Labour was how thin and precarious the tax base was, not their spending so much.

That did grow counter-cyclically though, and for sure a bunch of it wasn't efficient.

The big crime was, rather than rebalancing the economy, splurging the City cash. Labour were really bad for industry and their spending plans hugely dependent on the banking sector. So when that went belly up....

Certainly the accusations that they were spending out of control are unfair. Likewise anyone saying that Labour weren't disastrous for the economy is being somewhat disingenuous. Labour's economic plans were geared for electoral gain and the difficult decisions were avoided.

Alongside that there was a big streak of, oddly, corporatism. The gold was sold at rock-bottom prices to prop up the financial sector.

Slower and more sustainable growth, both economically and in spending, would've been preferable. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

What has how allegedly precarious the tax base was, got to do with excessive spending via borrowing as early as 2001? It wasn't precarious back then was it? How many ten of billions are being paid out EACH YEAR in debt interest to pay for their pre-2008 splurge? That is money being removed from the economy and from sustainable public spending.

Borrowing around £40bn a year for several years BEFORE 2008, means that it was hardly a one-off surprise.

If somebody gets a big pay increase, works a lot of overtime and gets bonuses and STILL has to borrow to fund their lifestyle, they are not doing as well as they make out and should cut back on their spending.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Interested doesn't translate to electoral success. People are interested in spectacular car crashes. Everyone is following this because it seems crazy that Labour will appoint someone as leader who seems unelectable to the population at large.




Foot? Kinnock? Labour has only really achieved modern success when they've gone for a centrist platform. The Unions appointed Ed Miliband and his dalliance with moving Labour to the left failed in a pretty brutal fashion. Even if we assume this wasn't because of the platform itself but a lack of confidence in the leader how is this going to work with Corbyn? He doesn't appear to come across as a safe pair of hands.



I mean more as party leader. He is clearly having an influence on the party given that he is poised to win the contest. However how will he get the support of his MPs?

What is he going to do when this hype and energy dies down and he has to be at PMQs facing the PM?

What will he do when people bring up Northern Ireland where he wants a United Ireland?

What will he do when people bring up the Falklands with which he wants to share sovereignty with Argentina?

What will he do when the press properly goes after him on the connections to Islamic hate preachers, anti-Semites and the IRA?

This is a guy who has had no senior position in party, has no history of being able to do the type of dealing making and politics required, hasn't got his Parliamentary party behind him and has no end of interesting things in his past for the Tories and the press to go after him with.

Maybe I am wrong and the stright-talking image will carry him on but at the moment I can't see him surviving until the next election let alone winning it.

Like I said before, until now Corbyn's been able to get away with his brand of minority guff which the usual suspects lap up with alacrity. If he becomes leader all that is going to change and he's going to be exposed for the dinosaur he is. He's enjoyed relative anonymity until now and rather like an ineffectual opposition, such as the Tories post 1997, he's been able to say/do things without consequences. That's all going to change and his words past and present start to have serious consequences for him and his party.

I wish him well in destroying the Labour Party and hope that out of its ashes will come a credible opposition willing to take on board life's economic realities and detached from outdated left wing dogma.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by nomadking

What has how allegedly precarious the tax base was, got to do with excessive spending via borrowing as early as 2001? It wasn't precarious back then was it? How many ten of billions are being paid out EACH YEAR in debt interest to pay for their pre-2008 splurge? That is money being removed from the economy and from sustainable public spending.

Borrowing around £40bn a year for several years BEFORE 2008, means that it was hardly a one-off surprise.

If somebody gets a big pay increase, works a lot of overtime and gets bonuses and STILL has to borrow to fund their lifestyle, they are not doing as well as they make out and should cut back on their spending.

That you compare a private individual's finances to those of a country is a pretty good indication this mightn't be a fruitful conversation.

EDIT: Probably a waste but a little light reading for you. Might be educational if you feel the need to learn a little. Alternatively if thinking the economy is like a personal bank account appeals do as you please. If you could find the personal bank account where you pay yourself interest on a large part of your overdraft that'd be awesome.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, that 1 UKIP Parliamentary seat, along with the 1 Green seat, has them quaking in their shoes.....

I think that says more about our voting system and the contempt our leaders hold for voters than anything else

Originally Posted by Damien

Interested doesn't translate to electoral success. People are interested in spectacular car crashes. Everyone is following this because it seems crazy that Labour will appoint someone as leader who seems unelectable to the population at large.

Interested is a good start for me, they weren't interested in any other leadership contests

Foot? Kinnock? Labour has only really achieved modern success when they've gone for a centrist platform. The Unions appointed Ed Miliband and his dalliance with moving Labour to the left failed in a pretty brutal fashion. Even if we assume this wasn't because of the platform itself but a lack of confidence in the leader how is this going to work with Corbyn? He doesn't appear to come across as a safe pair of hands.

Time will tell, I quite like the idea of clear distinctions between the parties, this constant fighting over the central ground and throwing in a few ideological tweaks here and there hasn't got us very far.

I mean more as party leader. He is clearly having an influence on the party given that he is poised to win the contest. However how will he get the support of his MPs?

What is he going to do when this hype and energy dies down and he has to be at PMQs facing the PM?

It'll be good to see them put on the spot to, see whether they have the courage of their convictions, I think most will fail the challenge

Maybe I am wrong and the stright-talking image will carry him on but at the moment I can't see him surviving until the next election let alone winning it.

It doesn't have to carry him to victory just as it didn't with Farage what it does is get people interested and will create change which is something I'm sure we all agree is desperately needed in Westminster

Agree re Voting System, not sure how it reflects contempt on behalf of leaders, since the UK electorate had a chance to to change the voting system, and didn't....

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Agree re Voting System, not sure how it reflects contempt on behalf of leaders, since the UK electorate had a chance to to change the voting system, and didn't....

but the single alternative choice they had on offer was a bad one as far as I remember