Corbyn did win, what's next?

[Craig B]

... you have a very stereotypical anti-England view.
...
big land mass, lots of sheep.
Racism runs rampant.
Because.... A few hundred years ago there was a minor skirmish.

I'd like my money back for financing Shellfish.
I'd like my money back for financing Scotland's free subscriptions, which i pay and subsidise for in your Salmond Utopia.
I'd like a refund for paying for a Bridge I don't use.

I must be "an imperialist" because my money subsidises your life.
And I get no benefit.

The next time you pop into the Chemist I suggest you stand up for your values, give a prayer to Alex and demand to hand over 9 quid whilst thinking about the evil English who paid for your tablets.

I'm glad I've induced you finally to state what you really think, so you don't any longer feel obliged to utter stuff like

... As an English person who lived in Scotland for over ten years I am happy to say that, despite disagreeing with your opinions, I respect your right to voice them.

But, still, I have no anti-English views.

Also, your criticism is not aimed at a "fringe" or "niche" "single-issue" movement, as I'm sure you agree. It is directed at the administration of a component country of the UK, and at all the aspects of its many policies of governance.

 

[Ambrosia]

In what world was ed moving the party to the right? How do folks even come up with this stuff?

the problem for Labour supporters is noone really knew what Ed was doing.

He was saying "all of the right things" - but noone took any notice of what he was saying.

Blair and Brown shifted the Labour party to a little right of centre, I think Ed was moving it back slightly more central, but ultimately Labour lost the last General Election imo because most people thought Ed would make a dreadful PM and on balance Cameron had done an OK job up till then.

Of course Cameron was running a coalition government, and not a conservative one, nowadays he gets things much more his own way.

People also tend to forget that the first term in office is easy, you just fix the mistakes of the previous lot, and blame them for everything.

 

[Ambrosia]

The engines are the least of the sports many, many problems.

I prefer the new engines by some distance. They are much better than the NA V8s.

It's interesting to note though that F1 nowadays is more about politics than sport.

 

[Ambrosia]

Imperialist? It's one nation!

I have a friend whose father is a staunch advocate of Cornish separatism. Think that's silly secessionist shenanigans too. These efforts are just tribal chest thumping, winding up ethnic tensions within the nation.

There are people in Cornwall (I grew up down there) that are proud of never having crossed the Tamar! (which is a river which forms one of the main boundaries between Cornwall and Devon)

I couldn't wait to get out of there, beautiful part of the world, but miles from anything.

As far as the UK goes, the SNP did so well because Labour imploded. Probably had a bit to do with the recent referendum on independance too. Scots voters narrowly voted to stay in the UK, and the majority of them saw that the SNP was doing a great job and Labour a poor one, voila, landslide.

Also this explains the UK quite well.

 

[The Atheist]

Meanwhile, the question about "What's next?" has been answered:

A military coup if he won the general election.

I never knew Col Blimp was a real Colonel.

 

[cullennz]

It would be like the mirror opposite of Frank Burns running the UK

 

[Lothian]

In what world was ed moving the party to the right? How do folks even come up with this stuff?

According to the political compass the labour party didn't move left/right under Ed but it did become more Libertarian/ less Authoritarian.

2015

2010

However many people have memories that go back more than 5 years and do not necessarily criticise the last change rather the general drift.

 

[MikeG]

There are people in Cornwall (I grew up down there) that are proud of never having crossed the Tamar! (which is a river which forms one of the main boundaries between Cornwall and Devon)......

You mean West Devon? I grew up (a bit) in Devon.

 

[The Atheist]

According to the political compass the labour party didn't move left/right under Ed but it did become more Libertarian/ less Authoritarian.

Bravo!

That is the entire point. If you're on a see-saw and the weight one end keeps getting heavier, it's going to be easier to shift that weight if pressure is applied right at the other end rather than 2 feet from the middle.

 

[Darat]

the problem for Labour supporters is noone really knew what Ed was doing.

He was saying "all of the right things" - but noone took any notice of what he was saying.

Blair and Brown shifted the Labour party to a little right of centre, I think Ed was moving it back slightly more central, but ultimately Labour lost the last General Election imo because most people thought Ed would make a dreadful PM and on balance Cameron had done an OK job up till then.

Of course Cameron was running a coalition government, and not a conservative one, nowadays he gets things much more his own way.

People also tend to forget that the first term in office is easy, you just fix the mistakes of the previous lot, and blame them for everything.

They lost it in the first three months of the 2010 election by allowing the Tories to use and keep using the big lie that the financial crisis was of Labour's making until people accepted it as the truth.

 

[MikeG]

They lost it in the first three months of the 2010 election by allowing the Tories to use and keep using the big lie that the financial crisis was of Labour's making until people accepted it as the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't know anyone who thinks the crash was Labour's fault. I also don't know anyone who think that Labour handled the economy well prior to the crash, particularly in losing control of public spending, bank deregulation, and gold sales. Doing all of those perfectly would not have prevented the recession, but would have had us in a much better financial state to survive it.

You're a Labour party member, aren't you?

 

[The Don]

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't know anyone who thinks the crash was Labour's fault. I also don't know anyone who think that Labour handled the economy well prior to the crash, particularly in losing control of public spending, bank deregulation, and gold sales. Doing all of those perfectly would not have prevented the recession, but would have had us in a much better financial state to survive it.

You're a Labour party member, aren't you?

This is exactly the kind of narrative that the Labour Party needed to take on prior to the election in 2010 instead of allowing The Conservatives to develop their own.

The gold sales cost a maximum of £4 bn (if timed perfectly instead), a relatively trivial sum in the grand scheme of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999–2002

...and remember, because so much of the UK's reserves at the time were in gold, the low price of gold had the effect of depressing the value of those reserves.

Blaming all of bank deregulation on Labour is IMO a bit rich. Absolutely they could, and should, have done more to regulate the banks but that would have been in the teeth of opposition from the banking industry (who, once again would have threatened to move overseas lock, stock and barrel) and from the Conservative Party. It's also depatable whether unilateral action in the UK would have insulated us from the problems in the US and Europe. The Conservative Party were very skillful (and disingenuous) in claiming that they would have done something different and that it would have worked.

Which leaves the final accusation, losing control of government spending. I cannot and will not defend PFI - it was a mess and Labour should be ashamed about entering a Faustian pact to keep "borrowing" off the books. OTOH the Conservatives weren't proposing to reduce spending before the crash so once again they've managed to invent a retro-austere position after the fact.

 

[Lothian]

This is exactly the kind of narrative that the Labour Party needed to take on prior to the election in 2010 instead of allowing The Conservatives to develop their own.

The gold sales cost a maximum of £4 bn (if timed perfectly instead), a relatively trivial sum in the grand scheme of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999–2002

...and remember, because so much of the UK's reserves at the time were in gold, the low price of gold had the effect of depressing the value of those reserves.

Blaming all of bank deregulation on Labour is IMO a bit rich. Absolutely they could, and should, have done more to regulate the banks but that would have been in the teeth of opposition from the banking industry (who, once again would have threatened to move overseas lock, stock and barrel) and from the Conservative Party. It's also depatable whether unilateral action in the UK would have insulated us from the problems in the US and Europe. The Conservative Party were very skillful (and disingenuous) in claiming that they would have done something different and that it would have worked.

Which leaves the final accusation, losing control of government spending. I cannot and will not defend PFI - it was a mess and Labour should be ashamed about entering a Faustian pact to keep "borrowing" off the books. OTOH the Conservatives weren't proposing to reduce spending before the crash so once again they've managed to invent a retro-austere position after the fact.

 

[MikeG]

.......Which leaves the final accusation, losing control of government spending. I cannot and will not defend PFI - it was a mess and Labour should be ashamed about entering a Faustian pact to keep "borrowing" off the books. OTOH the Conservatives weren't proposing to reduce spending before the crash so once again they've managed to invent a retro-austere position after the fact.

Even forgetting all about PFI, public spending rose sharply after the 2nd year of Brown's stewardship. My view is the same as people such as Ed Balls and Andy Burnham: Labour should have acknowledged that they got this wrong. They overspent in those years. The Conservatives played it beautifully with "fixing the roof whilst the sun is shining".......but they were right.

 

[Ambrosia]

[financial crisis] It's also depatable whether unilateral action in the UK would have insulated us from the problems in the US and Europe. The Conservative Party were very skillful (and disingenuous) in claiming that they would have done something different and that it would have worked.

That's how it works. Opposition party blames govt of the day for causing or mishandling, or both, whatever crisis happens, and claims they would have done xyz instead.

Of course it's much easier to be wise after the fact.

I don't think any government could have done much to avert the bank meltdown. The seeds of that were sown way back under Blair and Brown, and you could probably make a good case that it goes back further.

Essentially the main problem was credit ratings agencies badly misrated (by something like 200x) the risk involved with a newfangled 'mortgage bundle' type of financial instrument. Then the banks traded as many of them as they could. I don't put the blame for this squarely on the banks, moreso the ratings agencies. (though the banks aren't exactly blameless either)

If you're a banker and the 3 main ratings agencies are rating stuff at AAA, and all your competitors are making a lot of money by trading them, you'd be remiss not to do so as well.

By the time anyone who should have known better realised what was about to happen it was far too late to stop.

Any government trying to legislate against this while it was all mid swing would have faced stiff opposition from all sides and never got anything through parliament.

 

[Lothian]

Even forgetting all about PFI, public spending rose sharply after the 2nd year of Brown's stewardship. My view is the same as people such as Ed Balls and Andy Burnham: Labour should have acknowledged that they got this wrong. They overspent in those years. The Conservatives played it beautifully with "fixing the roof whilst the sun is shining".......but they were right.

I think labour have apologised, on many occasions, Ed certainly did in the televised debates. What I have not seen is any evidence that the Tories were at the time criticising the spending or that the Tories were pushing for large cuts to expenditure. I have not seen any Tories apologize for not brining the potential problem to labour's attention.

This was a big game of pass the parcel where labour were left holding it when the music stopped. Had the Tories been in charge I dare say we would see the exact same situation in reverse with Labour blaming the Tories for the financial mess.

Truth is they all got it wrong.

Slight derail but I partly blame the electoral system. The last few years of the cycle the government in power will have 'giveaway' budgets in order to try to buy votes at the expense of the country's financial well being. I am probably naive but I would like to think in a more representative system politicians working together would do what was best for the country as the prospect of a commons majority is not realistic.

 

[MikeG]

...... What I have not seen is any evidence that the Tories were at the time criticising the spending or that the Tories were pushing for large cuts to expenditure.......

No, indeed, but that's because they had just suffered an enormous thumping at the polls and thus were in no position to start loud-mouthing. Furthermore, they were going through leaders at a rate of knots....flapping around without any direction, and with no-one in charge. Expecting anything coherent from them at that point would have been optimistic.

 

[The Don]

That's how it works. Opposition party blames govt of the day for causing or mishandling, or both, whatever crisis happens, and claims they would have done xyz instead.

Of course it's much easier to be wise after the fact.

Absolutely true. Labour's error was to meekly just accept the narrative for a number of months instead of getting out there and challenging it. They were too busy apologising to say "Hey ! Where did you say you were going to do anything differently".

 

[The Don]

Even forgetting all about PFI, public spending rose sharply after the 2nd year of Brown's stewardship. My view is the same as people such as Ed Balls and Andy Burnham: Labour should have acknowledged that they got this wrong. They overspent in those years. The Conservatives played it beautifully with "fixing the roof whilst the sun is shining".......but they were right.

......and yet all that time, the Conservatives never brought it up. Until the crash, their spending proposals were the same as, or greater than those of Labour. They too only proposed fixing the roof once the monsoon had hit.

IOW, they proposed to do the same but got out of the blocks quickly to pretend that the would have done differently and Labour were so punch-drunk that they failed to challenge it. A big error IMO.

 

[MikeG]

......and yet all that time, the Conservatives never brought it up. Until the crash, their spending proposals were the same as, or greater than those of Labour. They too only proposed fixing the roof once the monsoon had hit.

IOW, they proposed to do the same but got out of the blocks quickly to pretend that the would have done differently and Labour were so punch-drunk that they failed to challenge it. A big error IMO.

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago:

No, indeed, but that's because they had just suffered an enormous thumping at the polls and thus were in no position to start loud-mouthing. Furthermore, they were going through leaders at a rate of knots....flapping around without any direction, and with no-one in charge. Expecting anything coherent from them at that point would have been optimistic.