next labour leader

No, as it happens. :) I think Corbyn would engage in further defence cuts and enjoy himself merrily whilst he was doing so, then sit down to tea with Putin irrespective of Russian policies. It's not that i too don't despair at humanity's inability to get along (I'd like to see us send people out to explore this solar system in my lifetime if possible), i just don't see a fawning prime minister as the appropriate option in the present climate.

I find defence cuts and diplomacy much less offensive than 633 British people dying and well over 20,000 British people being injured in needless wars. Don't you?
 
I find defence cuts and diplomacy much less offensive than 633 British people dying and well over 20,000 British people being injured in needless wars. Don't you?

:lol: That's one of the most loaded questions I've seen in ages.
 
I find defence cuts and diplomacy much less offensive than 633 British people dying and well over 20,000 British people being injured in needless wars. Don't you?

Will two wrongs make a right, then?

How many of those who sacrificed either health to life in the service, would support a policy of military inaction, and choosing Putin as this country's new BFF?

I have just been watching some of the Channel 4 debate: Corbyn is given a scenario where Russian tanks are rolling down the streets of a NATO country, when asked if the UK would honour its Article 5 obligations the simple response of "yes" was beyond him. He believes that friend Vladimir has been pressured into all this invasion lark by his Generals and business leaders you see.
 
Will two wrongs make a right, then?

How many of those who sacrificed either health to life in the service, would support a policy of military inaction, and choosing Putin as this country's new BFF?

I have just been watching some of the Channel 4 debate: Corbyn is given a scenario where Russian tanks are rolling down the streets of a NATO country, when asked if the UK would honour its Article 5 obligations the simple response of "yes" was beyond him. He believes that friend Vladimir has been pressured into all this invasion lark by his Generals and business leaders you see.

First of all, my loaded question was stated in the context of the war on Iraq apparently not being a tragedy according to Will Absolute - despite the number of British (and other) deaths involved.

What's wrong with a policy of military inaction in the current climate? If it will result in less people dying, I'm all for it. If we can cut the defence budget at the same time then even better.

Where has he said he wants Putin as his new BFF (or anything close)? I want quotes, because I haven't seen him saying anything positive about Putin.

What I've seen is him calling the NATO hyprocrites and that word implies that both sides are in the wrong - indeed he has criticised Russia's actions.
 
Will two wrongs make a right, then?

How many of those who sacrificed either health to life in the service, would support a policy of military inaction, and choosing Putin as this country's new BFF?

I have just been watching some of the Channel 4 debate: Corbyn is given a scenario where Russian tanks are rolling down the streets of a NATO country, when asked if the UK would honour its Article 5 obligations the simple response of "yes" was beyond him. He believes that friend Vladimir has been pressured into all this invasion lark by his Generals and business leaders you see.

It's a ridiculous question. What NATO country are Russia going to invade, knowing full well that the outcome is quite likely nuclear war? Should he have said "Yes, when that happens I'll flick the nuclear switch and end the world"? It's a ridiculous scenario that has no answer because it isn't plausible.
 
Do pardon me, but i can't but find it a bit off for the STWC to release a statement which could be interpreted as tacit approval for terrorist acts. Corbyn was a key supporter of the organisation prior to the invasion of Iraq, and is now its chairman, so this is not some distant relationship.

Even if the cause is one of naivety, that in itself raises concerns about the future leader of the Opposition, let alone a future PM. I can't deny that he had the right of it as regards the events of 03, however i am concerned that a potential future prime minister might have some animosity toward his own armed services.

He called for the return of armed forces before advocating that the Iraqi population exercise their right to self-determination. I don't view that as animosity towards British troops -- perhaps animosity towards the politicians who sent them off on an illegal war predicated (knowingly, as far as I'm concerned) on lies.
 
Will two wrongs make a right, then?

How many of those who sacrificed either health to life in the service, would support a policy of military inaction, and choosing Putin as this country's new BFF?

I have just been watching some of the Channel 4 debate: Corbyn is given a scenario where Russian tanks are rolling down the streets of a NATO country, when asked if the UK would honour its Article 5 obligations the simple response of "yes" was beyond him. He believes that friend Vladimir has been pressured into all this invasion lark by his Generals and business leaders you see.

Article 5 doesn't necessarily require military action, but to repeat your question back to you in a differently loaded fashion, would you promise a military response if Russian tanks are rolling does the streets of Lithuania?
 
Interesting story from top bloke Michael Crick.

Far-left preparing purge of ‘careerist’ Labour MPs if Corbyn wins

A left-wing supporter of Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that the far-left is preparing to oust several Labour MPs – who the activist condemned as “careerists” and right-wingers. While there is no suggestion that Mr Corbyn himself is involved or has any knowledge of the plot, this supporter has begun naming possible victims.

A Unite organiser from South-East London has told me that Vicky Foxcroft, who was only just elected in May as the MP for Lewisham Deptford, is said to be among the prime targets for de-selection. Remarkably, Foxcroft is herself a former union official, and was even listed as one of the names on the union’s list of 40 hoped-for candidates before the 2015 election.

“Activists in the area are very disappointed in Vicky Foxcroft, and the noises she has been making distancing herself from Unite,” said the official, who did not want to be named – and whose views may not be shared by the union leadership. He explained that local union members planned to replace Foxcroft with a black woman who has been an active member of the Corbyn organising team.

Boundaries

Some left-wing activists believe that the redrawing of constituency boundaries currently being implemented by the government in time for the next election will make it easier to get oust MPs whom they don’t like. “We think we can challenge Foxcroft if the boundaries are redrawn,” the Unite man said.

The two other Labour MPs in Lewisham are also named by the Unite organiser as likely targets, including Jim Dowd, MP for Lewisham West since 1992.

“We’re hoping that when the boundaries are redrawn he’ll step down. And there’ll be a real battle over the re-selection of Heidi Alexander [MP for Lewisham East since 2010]. There’s also a directly elected mayor standing down in Lewisham, so there’s a lot to play for. My union Unite will be putting resources into encouraging our members to join the Labour Party.”

Questioned as to other possible targets around the country, the Unite organiser said the Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, would “make a wonderful scalp.” He claimed that the left has historically been well-organised in Stoke-on-Trent, where Hunt is a local MP. “It doesn’t take many people to organise in strength.”

And he also identified the Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk, a fierce public critic of Jeremy Corbyn, as a possible victim. “This Danczuk chappy, he’d be interesting, ” he told me. “He’s made such vicious anti-Corbyn statements, he’s somebody in our cross-hairs.” But he also stressed it would be a matter for activists in Danczuk’s local party in Lancashire to move against him.

Factions

The activist, a veteran of Labour’s vicious internal battles of the 1980s, believes however, that the mere threat of being deselected will prompt many MPs to hold their tongues and adopt more left-wing positions. That’s what happened more than three decades ago in the days when Tony Benn was a powerful force in the party.

“The Progress people are gonna be worried,” he said, referring to the Blairite faction within Labour. “Many of these are out-and-out careerists” he claimed. “It might be that the careerists see the writing on the wall on Corbyn, and toe the line. If many of them see that lots of young people are joining the party, they may toe the line. It’s probably going to be patchy.”

The Unite official admitted the re-emergence of the Left was unexpected, and owed much to luck.

“The organised Left in the Labour Party is very small. Most of us had cleared out of the party, or drifted away. This is quite unexpected. I’m very chirpy, very chippy.”

Other parties

The source claimed that members of the trade union Unite, and left wing groupings such as TUSC, the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, and Left Unity, will probably rejoin the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader. Both TUSC and Left Unity stood candidates against Labour in the general election in May, but he believes it would probably be some years before individuals who actually stood as TUSC and Left Unity candidates were allowed to join the Labour Party.

But ordinary members of both groups would be allowed back relatively quickly, he claims. “Most members of left Unity will pile in where they can,” he says. TUSC are due to hold their annual conference on 26 September where they are expected to discuss the implications of Corbyn’s likely success.

The TUSC Chairman Dave Nellist, a former Labour MP who was expelled from the Labour Party for being a member of the Trotskyist Militant tendency (secretly known as the Revolutionary Socialist League) has hinted that under certain conditions, he might be willing in the long term to urge TUSC to rejoin Labour.

“Over 90 per cent of Labour MPs didn’t want Jeremy for the job,” Nellist told his local paper, the Evening Telegraph in Coventry, where he has served as a socialist councillor for 14 years. “He’d be in a battle with Labour MPs from day one and he’s going to need some mates.” But Nellist told me today that though he wishes Jeremy Corbyn well, talk of TUSC rejoining Labour is “extremely premature”.

The Unite source reckoned that Labour’s procedures had made it difficult for the party to identify new recruits and supporters who have votes in the leadership election, and to spot those who stood as candidates against Labour in recent elections. He reckoned this is partly because for some new members and supporters, the party only has email addresses, not postal addresses. “I would have been rumbled a long time ago if the Labour party had picked up on my address …. Certainly my partner, my children and my family members have all rejoined the party.”

But he also warned that Corbyn will face a huge battle to retain his job, especially if Labour continues doing badly in elections. “If they move against Corbyn after a couple of years, and he’s ousted, things will change. He may not be leader very long, and if that happens, we’d all pile out again.”

‘Designed to help Labour’s opponents’

In a statement, Unite denied the accusations were backed by the union. It said: ‘A Unite member in London, not a supporter of Labour, has been speculating about the deselection of local Labour MPs. This is not Unite policy at all, either in relation to the MPs named or in general, and his remarks have no authority from the union. They are designed to help Labour’s opponents and should be entirely disregarded.’

His Twitter feed also notes that more than 1 in 6 people eligible to vote in the leadership election is a member of Unite.
 
UZlDEuP.jpg


Private Eye's take on the media's ridiculous smear campaign.
 
Well, it's a media package -- to be aired on various channels (I'm guessing).

The point is that in politics you have to understand how the media works and deal with it. Hence Ed repeating the same thing 10 different ways, so that the only quotes that can go out are the one's his team sanctioned. Its wrong to make out that this is something special to Corbyn, all politicians face it.
 
The point is that in politics you have to understand how the media works and deal with it. Hence Ed repeating the same thing 10 different ways, so that the only quotes that can go out are the one's his team sanctioned. Its wrong to make out that this is something special to Corbyn, all politicians face it.
I get that, but isn't there a problem with the current discourse promoted by the media? It might be how it works (it is how it works) but tailoring your content to suit the populist style of journalism is, albeit ubiquitously, flawed. It limits any actual meaningful engagement on important issues. You're right that all politicians will have their words distorted, but my point with Corbyn is that his views/comments have been so utterly distorted as to promote debate around controversial issues to which his name should not be rightly attached.
 
I get that, but isn't there a problem with the current discourse promoted by the media? It might be how it works (it is how it works) but tailoring your content to suit the populist style of journalism is, albeit ubiquitously, flawed. It limits any actual meaningful engagement on important issues. You're right that all politicians will have their words distorted, but my point with Corbyn is that his views/comments have been so utterly distorted as to promote debate around controversial issues to which his name should not be rightly attached.

Most people just aren't interested in politics though, so they don't care for a debate. For most people politicians are like referees, you only notice them when they're bad. Its sufficient for most to read a two paragraph piece outlining in the simplest terms what such and such a politician has said and done this week, and they trust the paper they read to put in terms they can relate to. So if you want to reach them you have to speak in clear, unambiguous terms that will survive being chopped & repackaged from paper to paper.
 
Most people just aren't interested in politics though, so they don't care for a debate. For most people politicians are like referees, you only notice them when they're bad. Its sufficient for most to read a two paragraph piece outlining in the simplest terms what such and such a politician has said and done this week, and they trust the paper they read to put in terms they can relate to. So if you want to reach them you have to speak in clear, unambiguous terms that will survive being chopped & repackaged from paper to paper.
Good points tbf. Can't argue with much of that, it's just the nature of the game. Corbyn might be somewhat naive in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Guess, what. 50 economists have written to the FT claiming that Corbynomics would be damaging.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c11cb18-5176-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd.html#axzz3kfcEwlj6
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...by-uk-economists-in-open-letter-10483988.html

Reminds me of this quote.

1 of the comments:

MaxWatts said:
Hilarious claptrap propaganda. [n] economists put forward a point, which the grey men in suits, with their vested interests in keeping us all oppressed, then refute by conjuring up [n+x] 'economists', as though the sheeple will fall for this imbecilic rubbish, whereby the actual number of 'experts' carries weight, haha!

You can see it now. "40 economists, etc..." cannot be countered by the opposition's "3 economists" in the minds of the brainwashed, so make sure the original lot are outnumbered, thus "THE MAJORITY CANNOT BE WRONG!"

Beautiful, beautiful, risible nonsense, thankfully no longer taken seriously.

QE is ok for the tories, having 'printed' 8 times more than Gordon Brown, but not ok for socialist purposes. This clearly exposes the (barely hidden) ideological motivation behind this particular specious argument.

The assets of the people, having been sold off by the rich, and the profits distributed to their mates, simply MUST not be taken back, heaven forbid! Having exposed the myth that only the private sector can run these industries efficiently (again, utter tosh), the profits could now be used to pay back this mysterious 'deficit', which does not exist, and that's if you go for this whole smoke and mirrors illusion of 'debt' in the first place.

Convincing the electorate that running an economy is akin to running a personal bank account is the greatest trick ever perpetrated by the rich on the poor, and allowing private institutions to create 'money' out of thin air, as a counterfeiter does, is at last coming to its inevitable conclusion.

Why people cannot grasp the simple fact that the interest NEVER comprises part of the increased money supply, and so permanent debt is inevitable, I do not know.

Sadly for the rich, the people are slowly, but surely, waking up, hence this vociferous, orchestrated campaign by the media to stop this groundswell before it grows.

Too late...

In an earlier letter published in the Observer, 41 economists defended Corbyn’s economic policies and denied that they were extremely left wing. “His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity,” the signees said.

(From the article).
 
This is the key sentence from that 'opposition' letter, with regards to the anti-austerity position:

“People’s QE” would be a highly damaging threat to fiscal credibility, and unnecessary, since at this time of very low interest rates and tolerable debt/GDP public investment — in many areas much needed — can be financed conventionally.

Even these 'opposing' economists are in favour of increased borrowing for public investment. The anti-austerity position is widespread and mainstream macroeconomics, and is practically a consensus position.
 
He called for the return of armed forces before advocating that the Iraqi population exercise their right to self-determination.

"by whatever means they find necessary"

What do you think were the potential implications of that statement, a sit-down protest near the Green Zone and a boycott of Coca-Cola?

Perhaps you might find this reaction at the time to be of some interest:

http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000147.html


Article 5 doesn't necessarily require military action, but to repeat your question back to you in a differently loaded fashion, would you promise a military response if Russian tanks are rolling does the streets of Lithuania?

Naturally, Britain would be standing alongside others in such an effort, but yes we should be prepared to do so. Quite frankly i am surprised that you even feel the need to ask, the strength of the organisation is built around such assurances. If we didn't view the invasion of a fellow NATO member as adequate cause, which particular chain of events would pass that threshold?

I do not agree with @Mciahel Goodman's assessment either; the Russians are not going to reach for an ICBM in the face of Western resistance by conventional means, and outside of their own borders at that. The very idea is plain daft IMO.
 
Last edited:
This is the key sentence from that 'opposition' letter, with regards to the anti-austerity position:

Even these 'opposing' economists are in favour of increased borrowing for public investment. The anti-austerity position is widespread and mainstream macroeconomics, and is practically a consensus position.

Corbyn's claims about the £120Bn in tax evasion/avoidance & £93Bn in corporate welfare cuts are spurious, PQE is at best a risky proposition outside of a recession, and his wish list for if/when he gets into Government is already eye-wateringly expensive. Making this all one big package and calling it 'anti-austerity' will do more harm than good, and will only serve to tarnish the term further.

Separating day to day revenue spending from capital investment programme spending, looking to break even on the former but borrowing to invest in the latter, is a perfectly sensible position while rates are so low, and is a clear anti-austerity position. There's nothing imprudent or wasteful about that, its akin to buying a car so you can drive to a better paid job, a very sensible approach. This is the kind of simple clear message the party needs to transmit.

The Labour Party needs to rehabilitate the anti-austerity message if its to ever win again, to show that it can mean controlled and effective economic management. Shaky maths and risky economic stimulus packages combined with profligate spending is not the way to do that.
 
Corbyn's claims about the £120Bn in tax evasion/avoidance & £93Bn in corporate welfare cuts are spurious, PQE is at best a risky proposition outside of a recession, and his wish list for if/when he gets into Government is already eye-wateringly expensive. Making this all one big package and calling it 'anti-austerity' will do more harm than good, and will only serve to tarnish the term further.

Separating day to day revenue spending from capital investment programme spending, looking to break even on the former but borrowing to invest in the latter, is a perfectly sensible position while rates are so low, and is a clear anti-austerity position. There's nothing imprudent or wasteful about that, its akin to buying a car so you can drive to a better paid job, a very sensible approach. This is the kind of simple clear message the party needs to transmit.

The Labour Party needs to rehabilitate the anti-austerity message if its to ever win again, to show that it can mean controlled and effective economic management. Shaky maths and risky economic stimulus packages combined with profligate spending is not the way to do that.

Well, I partly agree with that actually. I don't think Corbyn's team have been particularly good at this, even though I think he has the right to play politics with the tax and corporate welfare issues. The debate has to be reframed. I don't think PQE is anywhere near as risky as some are making it out to be if you look at the details (put by Richard Murphy) but I think it's basically unnecessary. Murphy himself has more or less admitted it is just a politically calculated workaround to ordinary deficit spending.

I must say I'm quite shocked to hear you say Labour need to rehabilitate an anti-austerity message if it is ever to win again. I thought you were of the opinion that it's an impossible task and for practical reasons Labour need to follow the Tory/Liberal line on deficit control.
 
Last edited:
I think your ideas on "anti-austerity" may not mesh :lol: Labour's 2015 plan for a balanced current budget with room for extra capital spending was pretty sensible but gets called Tory-lite on here and was reckless tax and spend to the wider electorate.
 
It wasn't sensible at all. It was way too restrictive, but was admittedly better than the Tory policy.
 
I like how Corbyn rocks up to a formal leadership debate wearing an open collared shirt under a scruffy jacket.
 
It wasn't sensible at all. It was way too restrictive, but was admittedly better than the Tory policy.
Well you can think that, but almost every economist and economics journo I saw interviewed at around the time of the election said it was. Unfortunately Labour weren't able to get that message across because they hadn't done enough work in the earlier years to regain public trust on the economy.
 
Watching this debate. Burnham's been okay overall but his defence of changing his stance on certain issues when asked about principles was bizarre. Trying to argue that he was just following the party line since that's what he should do, but would change certain things if he was in charge. Or in other words, being unwilling to stick to his beliefs when he's an important name but not leader.

Made decent points about Labour trying to win back voters who switched to SNP/UKIP, though.
 
I despise Burnhum. He is your absolute run of the mill career politician who has no personality whatsoever. He has to shout to make it seem like he's making a point but none of what he says has any substance.