Corbyn did win, what's next?

[Lothian]

Thanks for that Glenn.

Here is the evidence in support of my assertion that the percentage of people from poor backgrounds is falling (from a link on Glenn's link):

Apart from the fact that the chart you linked showed a large fall under the Labour Government and a slight rise since the Coallition and subsequently the Tories took over I would point out that it reflectes relative poverty (60% of median), the measure you criticised. Have you changed your mind on its relevance?

 

[GlennB]

Thanks for that Glenn.

Here is the evidence in support of my assertion that the percentage of people from poor backgrounds is falling (from a link on Glenn's link):

"Is falling" or "was falling"? The figures have hardly changed for 10 years.

 

[MikeG]

How about a party, say, that had a platform of economic responsibility, high business and environmental ethics, free university tuition, favoured aspiration and poverty reduction, but didn't see government subsidy as a way of reducing poverty, was anti Trident, pro-Union, neutral on the EU? That doesn't have to be Tory-lite, nor compromise our economy, nor practice the politics of envy.

The most unfortunate thing in my view is that a combination of the unbridled ambitions of Gordon Brown, the over-representation of the Scots, too much spin, and the Iraq war, scuppered any useful legacy of the New Labour years. The great achievement of taking the dysfunctional and riven party of the 80s and making it fit for government is entirely forgotten as a result, when actually, done well, it should have been a model for the future.

 

[MikeG]

"Is falling" or "was falling"? The figures have hardly changed for 10 years.

In raising the subject of the poor of society I was making a broad point about the long term demographics of the people Labour were/ are attempting to appeal to. I wasn't being political in ascribing cause, nor looking at the short term. Whatever the interpretation of the figures, if your votes (hypothetically) come only from the people underneath the line in that graph, you've got a problem. That's all I was saying.

 

[MikeG]

Apart from the fact that the chart you linked showed a large fall under the Labour Government and a slight rise since the Coallition and subsequently the Tories took over

So what?

I would point out that it reflectes relative poverty (60% of median), the measure you criticised.

No, it doesn't. See the word "absolute" in the title?

Have you changed your mind on its relevance?

No. Have you thought about it at all?

 

[Lothian]

Whatever the interpretation of the figures, if your votes (hypothetically) come only from the people underneath the line in that graph, you've got a problem. That's all I was saying.

I can agree with that

 

[Lothian]

So what?

Your suggestion was that the proportion of poor would shrink. I am not convinced that will happen under this government. And it hasn't since the coalition took over.

No, it doesn't. See the word "absolute" in the title?

Yes I see it. I also opened the chart through the link where it says (page 123)

In 2013/14, the number and percentage of individuals in absolute low income
under RPI inflation is higher than under the other inflation measures. This is
because RPI inflation is generally higher than other inflation measures and
therefore the absolute low income threshold (60 per cent of 2010/11 median in 2013/14 prices) is higher under RPI inflation and so more people are identified
as being in absolute low income.

No. Have you thought about it at all?

I didn't really need to. I agree with you. Median is not a good measure.

 

[WildCat]

When you stated that European countries discriminate based on ethnicity and religion you were wrong.

Where did I say that? I said they favor their diaspora, just as Israel does.

Yeah this old chestnut makes no sense and never did.

If you feel this is factually incorrect then feel free to offer evidence to the contrary.

Because it is fact that Europeans (the Nazis had plenty of help from those in other countries in identifying the Jews) cared not one bit whether you were Jewish by religion or ethnicity, off to the concentration camps they went if they fit into either category. And that anti-Semitism didn't disappear after WWII, it just goes underground and is hidden by code words like "anti-Zionist".

No it's actually a huge difference. The Irish Government doesn't discriminate against any group of it's own citizens by offering them rights based on their religion or ethnicity.

Neither does Israel.

 

[The Don]

How about a party, say, that had a platform of economic responsibility, high business and environmental ethics, free university tuition, favoured aspiration and poverty reduction, but didn't see government subsidy as a way of reducing poverty, was anti Trident, pro-Union, neutral on the EU? That doesn't have to be Tory-lite, nor compromise our economy, nor practice the politics of envy.

Depending on how you define "economically responsible" (I would insist that the Coalition suddenly shutting off capital investment, shattering consumer confidence by shouting about "austerity" whilst doing nothing to actually implement it was also economically responsible) you've described Jeremy Corbyn's views to a 'T'.

He (unlike me) is neutral on the EU, he is anti-Trident, pro-union and so forth.

The most unfortunate thing in my view is that a combination of the unbridled ambitions of Gordon Brown, the over-representation of the Scots, too much spin, and the Iraq war, scuppered any useful legacy of the New Labour years. The great achievement of taking the dysfunctional and riven party of the 80s and making it fit for government is entirely forgotten as a result, when actually, done well, it should have been a model for the future.

For me there were three things that convinced me that I needed to leave the Labour Party (because I felt it had left me):

• Iraq - that whole going to war over WMD was insulting. If you want to depose a bad man then at least be honest and come out and say it so it can be debated properly
• PFI - a disasterous, fiscally illiterate policy which tried to hide borrowing at the expense of future operating expense. Your children will be paying for this failure for decades
• Putting everything to a focus group - you're supposed to be leaders, not merely pandering to idiots like me

I don't care how many Scots there were, I think we're all British.

 

[ceptimus]

The current government are implementing PFI by another name as a means of building new nuclear power stations.

 

[MikeG]

Depending on how you define "economically responsible" .......... you've described Jeremy Corbyn's views to a 'T'..........

There is no definition of economically responsible that I can fit to Corbyn or McDonnell, nor to Ed Balls.

Many a time on here I have described myself as socially left of centre, economically right of centre. I simply don't see any way of having a liberal and fair society without financial prudence and responsibility. So, above all the attributes I would ever look for in a government, I want one that will attempt to run the economy properly. This includes doing the best you can to not spend money we don't have. Other than the first couple of years of Gordon Brown, I haven't seen anything from the Labour party that gets close to satisfying me on economic responsibility, and the proposals of the Corbyn era, such as they are, would scare the living daylights out of me if I thought they had a hope in hell of ever being put into practise.

 

[The Don]

The current government are implementing PFI by another name as a means of building new nuclear power stations.

Oh no, their being held to ransom by power generators is IMO far worse.

 

[Craig B]

And that anti-Semitism didn't disappear after WWII, it just goes underground and is hidden by code words like "anti-Zionist".

As I have stated, the Zionist right has no other argument. The Zionist left, if such there still be, has no argument at all.

 

[GlennB]

There is no definition of economically responsible that I can fit to Corbyn or McDonnell, nor to Ed Balls.

The very last phrase I'd use to describe the Cameron/Osborne stewardship of the UK economy is "economically responsible".

They're pawning the future, flogging (and forcing the flogging of) one-off assets at an alarming rate , reneging on promises to rein-in tax avoiders, further punishing the poor ....

I know I posted it it before, but Cameron's recent letter of objection to Oxfordshire CC's cutting of services, asking why they couldn't cash-in assets rather than make the cuts, only to have it patiently explained by a Con CC leader that the CC had already cashed-in those assets, spoke of a man utterly out of touch with the reality of his own Con policies. And here I'll echo thoughts expressed upthread - if a Labour leader had written that letter he'd have been pilloried in the media to the point where he'd be a laughing stock among the electorate. But we have a heavily right wing media that don't like to dwell on such things.

This Conservative crew will go down in history as the most remarkable bunch of wankers ever to be at the helm of UK government. While Osborne might become the next Con leader there's no way he'll become the next Con PM following a general election. He's already rising above Thatcher and Blair when it comes to public hatred, and they were both already elected PMs when they attracted their hatred.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I have never understood why the Cabinet material of both Labour and Conservative, and Liberal, is always lacking in a Health Minister who has ever worked in a hospital, or care home, or a Finance Minister who knows anything about finance, and how to lend money safely, or a Defence Minister with battle experience. or an Education Minister who has faced a classroom of 30 or 40 children, or a Culture Minister who knows anything about ballet or theatre or opera and libraries, and so on. We end up with the worst Home Secretary in living memory.

Foreign Ministers don't seem to know anything about the history of the Middle East, or Russia, and they certainly can't speak a continental language.

I think the theory is that Ministers learn on the job. The trouble is they are not up to it.

It's like Gilbert and Sullivan in Victorian times saying that every girl and boy born alive is either a little Liberal or Conservative, or extreme liberal nowadays. The Defence Ministers are a bit like HMS Pinafore where he thought so little that they rewarded him by making him the ruler of the Queen's Navy.

I must confess that the most sensible presidential hopeful in America now seems to be Bernie Sanders. I don't suppose he has much chance because of lack of support from the mainstream media, and the banks. At least he could prevent a nuclear bomb going off in Maine.

 

[The Don]

I have never understood why the Cabinet material of both Labour and Conservative, and Liberal, is always lacking in a Health Minister who has ever worked in a hospital, or care home, or a Finance Minister who knows anything about finance, and how to lend money safely, or a Defence Minister with battle experience. or an Education Minister who has faced a classroom of 30 or 40 children, or a Culture Minister who knows anything about ballet or theatre or opera and libraries, and so on. We end up with the worst Home Secretary in living memory.

Foreign Ministers don't seem to know anything about the history of the Middle East, or Russia, and they certainly can't speak a continental language.

I think the theory is that Ministers learn on the job. The trouble is they are not up to it.

It's like Gilbert and Sullivan in Victorian times saying that every girl and boy born alive is either a little Liberal or Conservative, or extreme liberal nowadays. The Defence Ministers are a bit like HMS Pinafore where he thought so little that they rewarded him by making him the ruler of the Queen's Navy.

I must confess that the most sensible presidential hopeful in America now seems to be Bernie Sanders. I don't suppose he has much chance because of lack of support from the mainstream media, and the banks. At least he could prevent a nuclear bomb going off in Maine.

To be an effective minister, you don't necessarily have to have direct hands-on experience of the sector, indeed it may be an advantage to have some separation. For example, senior ex-military people generally have a different opinion of the role of, and importance of (and how much we should spend on) the military. I'm not sure how happy I'd be to have an ex-banker in charge of the treasury and so on....

 

[MikeG]

Corbyn has now lost his shadow Attorney General, Catherine McKinnell. She cited concerns over the direction of the party under Corbyn. BBC

 

[The Don]

If you have a Parliamentary Party who wants to firmly put two fingers up at the party membership then they're going about it the right way. The size of the mandate that Jeremy Corbyn got from the membership means that a direct challenge to his leadership would have been unlikely to work but the constant drip, drip of resignations may compel Jeremy Corbyn to resign.

 

[Darat]

Corbyn has now lost his shadow Attorney General, Catherine McKinnell. She cited concerns over the direction of the party under Corbyn. BBC

And the pressures of all her roles.

 

[Henri McPhee]

To be an effective minister, you don't necessarily have to have direct hands-on experience of the sector, indeed it may be an advantage to have some separation..

That's all very well, and I know it has been said that Britain is a nation of amateurs. The problem is that things like social security and pensions and social housing is in the control of people who have never been poor. Health is in the control of people who have private healthcare schemes. Industrial policy is in the control of people who have never been inside a factory or steelworks. It leads to a disastrous and monstrous policy.

The sad fact is that there is practically no difference between the Tory and Liberal and Labour party except that Labour under Corbyn says it will 'balance the books' and make austerity cuts more carefully than the Tories.

The ironic thing is that both Britain and America now still have a deficit budget. If Britain and America tried to bring about a surplus budget tomorrow there would be an increase in unemployment, and lack of constructive investment, and it would be only the poor who would suffer.