Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Letter to Laura. Does Momentum want to help Jeremy control the

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Letter to Laura. Does Momentum want to help Jeremy control the party or run the country?

“When are we going to convert you?” I was frankly rather flattered to be asked that question by Laura Parker, then political secretary to Jeremy Corbyn and now national director of Momentum.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 3,977
    edited November 2017
    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.
  • Second! Like Remain...
  • FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    ToryJim said:
    So the penalty shootout isn’t happening, and we move to the replay.
    Problem is that there's no guarantee the reply will be any more decisive. The recent polling (last 5 polls, all different companies) has, to the nearest half-point (changes on the GE):

    CDU 31 (-2)
    SPD 20.5 (n/c)
    AfD 12.5 (n/c)
    FDP 10.5 (n/c)
    Grune 10.5 (+1.5)
    Linke 9.5 (+0.5)

    Again, once AfD are excluded, then the CDU/CSU becomes an essential component, which in turn means Linke cannot join the government, and so either the SPD (possibly with another), or both the Greens and FPD must - if a government is to be formed.
    Perhaps time for a thread - Is Germany ungovernable?
    Is Angela Merkel a pound shop Theresa May?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    edited November 2017
    FPT, but more relevant to this one:

    The slow takeover of the entire Labour Party continues:

    13:52 Labour members have got to [elect] three new people to serve as constituency party representatives on the national executive committee (NEC) following reforms agreed at the party conference in Brighton. Constituency Labour party (CLP) nominations closed yesterday and Momentum, the Labour group for Jeremy Corbyn supporters, has released figures showing that the three candidates on its slate, Yasmine Dar, Rachel Garnham and Jon Lansman have got far more nominations than the three candidates being backed by the centrist groups Labour First and Progress, Eddie Izzard, Johanna Baxter, and Gurinder Singh Josan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/20/brexit-bill-voters-will-go-bananas-if-uk-offers-40bn-to-eu-former-tory-minister-warns-may-ahead-of-key-meeting-politics-live
  • FPT:

    Barnier's mandate is set for him but there are ways of interpreting that. It's all very well saying that the UK must provide 'greater clarity' on X (for which, read 'concessions'), but he could equally have taken a message back to the Council saying 'I don't think it will be easy or perhaps even possible to get a deal here and the EU should consider a more flexible approach if it wants one'. That isn't to dictate policy but it is to use the expertise of his position to help those who do make the decision to make the best one they can. Someone genuinely interested in a deal would be exploring options beyond his mandate if he thought it would help, even if this was done informally and through deniable sources.

    The Spectator did an article on this:

    Barnier represents not France but the EU, and he has a negotiating position, the notorious European Council Guidelines, on which the veteran British diplomat Sir Peter Marshall has recently commented that ‘I have never seen, nor heard tell of, a text as antipathetic to the principle of give and take which is generally assumed to be at the heart of negotiation among like-minded democracies’. But, as a senior German politician recently commented off the record, its most important clause is the one that says it can be ‘adjusted’. This is the sort of language the British understand, the language of bargaining. But that is not how the French understand negotiation or texts...

    ...the French Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain published in 2014 an admirably concise handbook to oil the wheels of Franco-British trade, optimistically entitled ‘Light at the End of the Tunnel’. It notes that the British ‘prefer a faster pace’, while the French ‘dislike being hurried’. The British ‘emphasise solutions’, the French ‘emphasis problems’. For the British, ‘compromise is viewed positively and is linked to pragmatism’; for the French, ‘compromise can be viewed negatively, as it implies that a position was not well reasoned’. To crown it all, while the British are ‘proponents of “win-win”, and will compromise in an effort to build long-term relationships that benefit both parties’, the French are ‘proponents of “I win-you lose”, appearing not to care if it risks the breakdown of the relationship’.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,731
    edited November 2017
    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Just remember, the Establishment were beaten by a number, wait for it, painted on a bus.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    fpt
    DavidL said:

    A member of India's Hindu nationalist ruling party has offered a £1million reward to anyone who beheads the lead actress and the director of the yet-to-be released Bollywood film.

    The film Padmavati has sparked controversy over its alleged handling of the relationship between a Hindu queen and a Muslim ruler.

    Suraj Pal Amu, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader from the northern state of Haryana, offered the bounty against actress Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali on Sunday.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5099415/Bollywood-film-faces-attacks-Hindu-groups.html#ixzz4yyZwqs6B

    Puts the squealing about your picture being on the front of the Telegraph into some perspective doesn't it?
    I am not sure any of those "squealed" about it. Quite a nasty comment for you, David?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,731

    FPT:

    Barnier's mandate is set for him but there are ways of interpreting that. It's all very well saying that the UK must provide 'greater clarity' on X (for which, read 'concessions'), but he could equally have taken a message back to the Council saying 'I don't think it will be easy or perhaps even possible to get a deal here and the EU should consider a more flexible approach if it wants one'. That isn't to dictate policy but it is to use the expertise of his position to help those who do make the decision to make the best one they can. Someone genuinely interested in a deal would be exploring options beyond his mandate if he thought it would help, even if this was done informally and through deniable sources.

    The Spectator did an article on this:

    Barnier represents not France but the EU, and he has a negotiating position, the notorious European Council Guidelines, on which the veteran British diplomat Sir Peter Marshall has recently commented that ‘I have never seen, nor heard tell of, a text as antipathetic to the principle of give and take which is generally assumed to be at the heart of negotiation among like-minded democracies’. But, as a senior German politician recently commented off the record, its most important clause is the one that says it can be ‘adjusted’. This is the sort of language the British understand, the language of bargaining. But that is not how the French understand negotiation or texts...

    ...the French Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain published in 2014 an admirably concise handbook to oil the wheels of Franco-British trade, optimistically entitled ‘Light at the End of the Tunnel’. It notes that the British ‘prefer a faster pace’, while the French ‘dislike being hurried’. The British ‘emphasise solutions’, the French ‘emphasis problems’. For the British, ‘compromise is viewed positively and is linked to pragmatism’; for the French, ‘compromise can be viewed negatively, as it implies that a position was not well reasoned’. To crown it all, while the British are ‘proponents of “win-win”, and will compromise in an effort to build long-term relationships that benefit both parties’, the French are ‘proponents of “I win-you lose”, appearing not to care if it risks the breakdown of the relationship’.

    Fascinating. Thanks for sharing that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,419

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    ToryJim said:
    So the penalty shootout isn’t happening, and we move to the replay.
    Problem is that there's no guarantee the reply will be any more decisive. The recent polling (last 5 polls, all different companies) has, to the nearest half-point (changes on the GE):

    CDU 31 (-2)
    SPD 20.5 (n/c)
    AfD 12.5 (n/c)
    FDP 10.5 (n/c)
    Grune 10.5 (+1.5)
    Linke 9.5 (+0.5)

    Again, once AfD are excluded, then the CDU/CSU becomes an essential component, which in turn means Linke cannot join the government, and so either the SPD (possibly with another), or both the Greens and FPD must - if a government is to be formed.
    Perhaps time for a thread - Is Germany ungovernable?
    Is Angela Merkel a pound shop Theresa May?
    Perhaps she needs a Willy (Brandt)?
  • Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Ahem, from last year.

    The Brexiteers, Juncker’s fifth columnists.

    How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.


    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
  • Interesting thread Mr Brind, thank you.
  • FPT, but more relevant to this one:

    The slow takeover of the entire Labour Party continues:

    13:52 Labour members have got to [elect] three new people to serve as constituency party representatives on the national executive committee (NEC) following reforms agreed at the party conference in Brighton. Constituency Labour party (CLP) nominations closed yesterday and Momentum, the Labour group for Jeremy Corbyn supporters, has released figures showing that the three candidates on its slate, Yasmine Dar, Rachel Garnham and Jon Lansman have got far more nominations than the three candidates being backed by the centrist groups Labour First and Progress, Eddie Izzard, Johanna Baxter, and Gurinder Singh Josan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/20/brexit-bill-voters-will-go-bananas-if-uk-offers-40bn-to-eu-former-tory-minister-warns-may-ahead-of-key-meeting-politics-live

    Poor Eddie Izzard....
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 3,977
    Mortimer said:

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Just remember, the Establishment were beaten by a number, wait for it, painted on a bus.
    Grand. Master. Plan.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Ahem, from last year.

    The Brexiteers, Juncker’s fifth columnists.

    How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.


    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
    With 80% opposed to the Euro compared to the 52% who voted to Leave the EU highly unlikely.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,419
    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    The real tin-foilers will say that Theresa May had to throw the election so that Brexit could crash'n'burn. Hence the shit "let's make our supporters forced to sell their houses" Manifesto....

    She took one for the Euro-team.
  • Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Just remember, the Establishment were beaten by a number, wait for it, painted on a bus.
    Grand. Master. Plan.
    Brexit was the Remainers Operation Dynamo which beget Operation Overlord via a minor mishap in Dieppe.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 3,977

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Ahem, from last year.

    The Brexiteers, Juncker’s fifth columnists.

    How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.


    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
    Dude, I can barely remember what I had for breakfast, never mind what you wrote 13 months ago ;)
  • FPT, but more relevant to this one:

    The slow takeover of the entire Labour Party continues:

    13:52 Labour members have got to [elect] three new people to serve as constituency party representatives on the national executive committee (NEC) following reforms agreed at the party conference in Brighton. Constituency Labour party (CLP) nominations closed yesterday and Momentum, the Labour group for Jeremy Corbyn supporters, has released figures showing that the three candidates on its slate, Yasmine Dar, Rachel Garnham and Jon Lansman have got far more nominations than the three candidates being backed by the centrist groups Labour First and Progress, Eddie Izzard, Johanna Baxter, and Gurinder Singh Josan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/20/brexit-bill-voters-will-go-bananas-if-uk-offers-40bn-to-eu-former-tory-minister-warns-may-ahead-of-key-meeting-politics-live

    Poor Eddie Izzard....
    Yes, well, I thought it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of the saner members of the Labour Party to draw attention to that particular name.
  • RochalePioneers has got a point, but it’s much more related to age than class.

    Kyf_100 has spoken of Corbynism as a middle class rebellion, so his/her analysis doesn’t surprise me. The reality is though is that wanting affordable rents and housing and secure employment is not specifically a middle class ambition. In fact, it’s what most working people want.

    The IRA attacks didn’t just fail because they didn’t attack Corbyn economically. They failed because the Conservative Party and the right wing press generally has very little hearing among those who voted for Corbyn. This idea that dozens will become Conservatives upon hearing the ‘truth’ about Corbyn is delusional when you realise that among his voters, the Conservative party and its allies in the press are not a credible voice to begin with.

    But it’s also more than that. Labour are seen to represent both the social values and economic interests of the under 50s. Until the Conservative Party change this by making a positive case to vote for them, they won’t see all these under 50s running to them.
  • I think that the hope of many loyal Labour members and supporters that a Corbyn/McDonell government can be constrained to be "sensibly social democratic" is a delusion. They are both genuine fanatics working with an inner cadre of fanatics and either there will be a modrately damaging farce as they fail to implement their programme or a genuine disaster. I write as a life-long albeit critical Labour supporter (till now) who used to be on th left of the party in the days of Militant. I believe that much of the support they currently have is based on fundamental ignorance of the nature of the Momentum leadership and Corbyn himself.
  • The truth is that labour is in flux, and morphing into something very different from the days of Blair and Brown.

    Where it ends up will only be tested in government. They can put eye-catching and tempting policies up there, but the proof of this particular pudding can only truely be seen when they have to enact their policies, and what they actually try to do.
  • Parkfield and Oxbridge byelection in this parish on Thursday, so I was knocking on doors on Saturday. Spoke to one voter who voiced exactly what Don refers to:

    " I've always supported Labour, but can't vote for you because I don't like your leader"
    "Thats ok, he isn't running for council"
    "well yes but the national picture, I voted Tory in 2015"
    "OK, so you've talked about the cuts on the council. Those are a direct result of the funding cuts voted through by the Tory MP we had in 2015"
    "well yes, but I don't like your leader"

    Anecdotage, but a good example of (a) a Labour voter (b) voting Tory (c) directly against her own described interests (d) because of some unspecified dread she has for Jezbollah. I couldn't get from her why she disliked him other than "he's awful" - the Daily Mail has done the job it set out to do. Problem for Labour is that before He ascended they did the same for Milliband.

    What do Momentum want? The transformation of the party, then the country. Which would be fine were it not for the naked personality cult enshrined in its project. I go to Momentum meetings, partly because its good politics to do so, partly to keep an eye on (and dampen down) its batshit element.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited November 2017

    RochalePioneers has got a point, but it’s much more related to age than class.

    Kyf_100 has spoken of Corbynism as a middle class rebellion, so his/her analysis doesn’t surprise me. The reality is though is that wanting affordable rents and housing and secure employment is not specifically a middle class ambition. In fact, it’s what most working people want.

    The IRA attacks didn’t just fail because they didn’t attack Corbyn economically. They failed because the Conservative Party and the right wing press generally has very little hearing among those who voted for Corbyn. This idea that dozens will become Conservatives upon hearing the ‘truth’ about Corbyn is delusional when you realise that among his voters, the Conservative party and its allies in the press are not a credible voice to begin with.

    But it’s also more than that. Labour are seen to represent both the social values and economic interests of the under 50s. Until the Conservative Party change this by making a positive case to vote for them, they won’t see all these under 50s running to them.

    Until under 50s actually experience a Corbyn, Old Labour government, with higher taxes, strikes, ever higher inflation and nationalisations all the Tory campaigning in the world won't be as effective as actually living through an Old Labour government for 5 years.

    Over 50s have lived through Old Labour governments in living memory, that was why so many of them voted Tory in June.
  • HYUFD said:

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Ahem, from last year.

    The Brexiteers, Juncker’s fifth columnists.

    How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.


    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
    With 80% opposed to the Euro compared to the 52% who voted to Leave the EU highly unlikely.
    Public opinion changes, it isn't static.

    I remember when the polls showed a majority of the public thought we'd eventually join the Euro.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116
    FPT: in response to @Toppings' thoughtful post.

    "I have not forgotten how difficult it is to get a job in the City. But how much you get paid thereafter is not solely determined by how hard you work. If you think that you are in for a surprise. And not a good one. I would impress that point very forcibly on anyone who gets a job in the City.

    It was 13 years. At one institution. Not all the matters related to that institution. And not all of them were criminal. (Thank God!). And it was not 5000 people. All too often the same people came up. I am well aware of all the people who are not themselves under investigation. I have spent time doing advisory work, precisely because after a period as a litigator (earlier in my career) I wanted to spend time with employees who were trying to get thing right rather than when it all went wrong. It was a very valuable experience. And it is one reason why I got into training as well as investigation, precisely in order to show the people who do the right thing that they are not mugs for doing the right thing.

    But the cultural/conduct problems in the City don't primarily relate to the wrongdoers but to too many of those around them who often failed to enforce the right or any standards, who helped create - almost without realising, possibly, because these things were not talked about or thought important - an environment in which good people became ethically blind.

    That is a problem in a lot of sectors not just the City.

    I am cynical. But cynics are often people who have high expectations about how things ought to be and are disappointed that they aren't. It's a form of self-protection, as much as anything. I think the financial services sector - a trusted, efficient one - matters and I would like to play my part, however small, in helping it and the people in it to live up to the best of themselves.

    But I refuse to buy the bullshit which all too often emanates from those who are - and have been for far too long - too unwilling to confront the realities of their industry."

    BTW to be clear I am not accusing you of peddling bullshit.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 624
    As far as I am concerned Momentum is a fascism of the left organisation _ and I am a Labour supporter

    But Zoe Williams thinks an election is not far off. She's right. Five months. Ago.

    But four and a half years into the future. There is absolutely no mechanism by which there is going to be an election before 2022 unless the Tories lose 7 by elections and a vote of confidence. To argue that this is not far off is la la land.

    If there were an election tomorrow, I believe that Labour would lose it. Tories who abstained in June would come out in their legions to stop Corbyn.

    The difference between an election tomorrow and in four years is that at least if it were tomorrow, Corbynista delusions would evaporate faster.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    RochalePioneers has got a point, but it’s much more related to age than class.

    Kyf_100 has spoken of Corbynism as a middle class rebellion, so his/her analysis doesn’t surprise me. The reality is though is that wanting affordable rents and housing and secure employment is not specifically a middle class ambition. In fact, it’s what most working people want.

    The IRA attacks didn’t just fail because they didn’t attack Corbyn economically. They failed because the Conservative Party and the right wing press generally has very little hearing among those who voted for Corbyn. This idea that dozens will become Conservatives upon hearing the ‘truth’ about Corbyn is delusional when you realise that among his voters, the Conservative party and its allies in the press are not a credible voice to begin with.

    But it’s also more than that. Labour are seen to represent both the social values and economic interests of the under 50s. Until the Conservative Party change this by making a positive case to vote for them, they won’t see all these under 50s running to them.


    Agreed. The Tories are not being listened to not just because they don't have interesting policies but because too many of them seem to be batshit insane. And it's not just the under-50's who think this.
  • Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    The real tin-foilers will say that Theresa May had to throw the election so that Brexit could crash'n'burn. Hence the shit "let's make our supporters forced to sell their houses" Manifesto....

    She took one for the Euro-team.
    "The real tin-foilers will say that Theresa May had to throw the election....."
    But that's what you said
    - Oh I see.
  • Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    The real tin-foilers will say that Theresa May had to throw the election so that Brexit could crash'n'burn. Hence the shit "let's make our supporters forced to sell their houses" Manifesto....

    She took one for the Euro-team.
    Plus to sabotage Brexit she gave key Brexit roles to Boris, David Davis, and the disgraced Liam Fox, all three men put the ‘tit’ in Titan.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,325
    edited November 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    RochalePioneers has got a point, but it’s much more related to age than class.

    Kyf_100 has spoken of Corbynism as a middle class rebellion, so his/her analysis doesn’t surprise me. The reality is though is that wanting affordable rents and housing and secure employment is not specifically a middle class ambition. In fact, it’s what most working people want.

    The IRA attacks didn’t just fail because they didn’t attack Corbyn economically. They failed because the Conservative Party and the right wing press generally has very little hearing among those who voted for Corbyn. This idea that dozens will become Conservatives upon hearing the ‘truth’ about Corbyn is delusional when you realise that among his voters, the Conservative party and its allies in the press are not a credible voice to begin with.

    But it’s also more than that. Labour are seen to represent both the social values and economic interests of the under 50s. Until the Conservative Party change this by making a positive case to vote for them, they won’t see all these under 50s running to them.


    Agreed. The Tories are not being listened to not just because they don't have interesting policies but because too many of them seem to be batshit insane. And it's not just the under-50's who think this.
    +1. For me the very hardline Brexiteers come across as well....a bit insane. They may even be drowning out more moderate/reasonable Leavers in the party.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,528

    Parkfield and Oxbridge byelection in this parish on Thursday, so I was knocking on doors on Saturday. Spoke to one voter who voiced exactly what Don refers to:

    " I've always supported Labour, but can't vote for you because I don't like your leader"
    "Thats ok, he isn't running for council"
    "well yes but the national picture, I voted Tory in 2015"
    "OK, so you've talked about the cuts on the council. Those are a direct result of the funding cuts voted through by the Tory MP we had in 2015"
    "well yes, but I don't like your leader"

    Anecdotage, but a good example of (a) a Labour voter (b) voting Tory (c) directly against her own described interests (d) because of some unspecified dread she has for Jezbollah. I couldn't get from her why she disliked him other than "he's awful" - the Daily Mail has done the job it set out to do. Problem for Labour is that before He ascended they did the same for Milliband.

    What do Momentum want? The transformation of the party, then the country. Which would be fine were it not for the naked personality cult enshrined in its project. I go to Momentum meetings, partly because its good politics to do so, partly to keep an eye on (and dampen down) its batshit element.

    Fair play for that post, a great example of the divide between the traditional Labour Party and the new Momentum types.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    HYUFD said:

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Ahem, from last year.

    The Brexiteers, Juncker’s fifth columnists.

    How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.


    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
    With 80% opposed to the Euro compared to the 52% who voted to Leave the EU highly unlikely.
    Public opinion changes, it isn't static.

    I remember when the polls showed a majority of the public thought we'd eventually join the Euro.
    It was public opposition to the Euro from 1997 to 2001 in polls which was pivotal to Blair keeping sterling, even though polls at the time also showed voters wanted to stay in the EU. Even if we did rejoin the EU (which I still think highly unlikely, only EFTA is really plausible now) we will almost certainly never join the Euro.
  • Good thread Don. I agree 100%.

    "The big worry is about Momentum’s capacity to foment debilitating divisions in local parties."

    That is the nub of it. The fact that Momentum ran slates for positions in my local party in itself set members against one another at a local level in a way that I haven't experienced in 30 years of prior membership. It comes with all the bullying that used to be confined to infighting within the far left, such that party meetings are now thoroughly unpleasant affairs. The default reaction of many (myself included) is to simply disengage and get on with life outside the Labour Party. If the Momentum faction want to exclusively dominate the running of the local party then they are welcome to exclusively do the donkey work of door knocking and leafleting as well.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 844

    ...

    Kyf_100 has spoken of Corbynism as a middle class rebellion, so his/her analysis doesn’t surprise me. The reality is though is that wanting affordable rents and housing and secure employment is not specifically a middle class ambition. In fact, it’s what most working people want.

    The IRA attacks didn’t just fail because they didn’t attack Corbyn economically. They failed because the Conservative Party and the right wing press generally has very little hearing among those who voted for Corbyn. This idea that dozens will become Conservatives upon hearing the ‘truth’ about Corbyn is delusional when you realise that among his voters, the Conservative party and its allies in the press are not a credible voice to begin with.

    But it’s also more than that. Labour are seen to represent both the social values and economic interests of the under 50s. Until the Conservative Party change this by making a positive case to vote for them, they won’t see all these under 50s running to them.

    I think it's crazy to talk about "the interersts of the under 50s" as if they were one homogenous group. Even crazier than those articles that say all millennials love foreign travel and avocado on toast. There is a vast spectrum of all views at all ages.

    As you say, I have already made the point that the young and middle class are turning towards Corbynism as a direct consequence of their own declining living standards in relation to their parents.

    But as you also say, it's a unversal desire to want secure housing and employment - which is why so many working class people voted to leave the EU, as immigrants are mostly in direct competition with them for housing and jobs.

    The Tories can't just, as they did in 2017, run a campaign that points the finger at Corbyn and goes "wah wah, he's a bad man", but what they can do is show people how they will be worse off under Corbynism.

    Tonally, that needs to be a message of ambition. The Conservatives have historically succeeded when they have made it clear that if you work hard you will get on in life. Labour's fortunes reversed under Blair when they clothed themselves in the language of aspiration.

    Corbynism is not a message of aspiration, it is a message of "we will take from those better off than you". The Conservative campagin, therefore, needs to show that _you_ will be the "better off" people that Corbyn is taking from.

    What the Conservatives need to do is fully cost up all of Labour's manifesto and demand answers on exactly where the money will come from, then show ordinary working people how they are actually the people who will have the fruits of their hard work taken off them.

    Such as it always has been with socialism.

    Labour's trick at GE2017 was to convince enough people that they would be the recipients of the free jam, rather than the ones paying for it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    @Cyclefree

    Thanks for the response.

    I have found that on the whole most people aim to do well and to do well in the right way. A minority skate near the edge, while a small minority rely on their supposed intelligence to stay ahead of the game (there are of course no words adequately to describe the idiocy of people who do commit transgressions and document it to each other on IB chat the while.)

    These days, as you are very well aware yourself, the amount of regulations and restrictions governing behaviour, together with the change in culpability to the individual rather than the institution has meant that much bad behaviour has disappeared. Plus the culture has changed also. Greed has not been good for quite some time and a genuine desire to help clients is more pervasive, but maybe that is just the younger generation.

    I appreciate you not accusing me of peddling bullshit; I am certainly not saying there is no wrongdoing, nor that everyone is an angel, just that these days, broadly, the City is full of good people, working hard, with honour, and ethically...to make themselves a shedload of money.

    Now, is that, together with the fact that they probably spared precious little time thinking of the good folk of Wisbech when voting in the referendum, a stain on their collective character? I don't think it is.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,953

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    The real tin-foilers will say that Theresa May had to throw the election so that Brexit could crash'n'burn. Hence the shit "let's make our supporters forced to sell their houses" Manifesto....

    She took one for the Euro-team.
    Plus to sabotage Brexit she gave key Brexit roles to Boris, David Davis, and the disgraced Liam Fox, all three men put the ‘tit’ in Titan.
    Perhaps she has something on Boris and will force him to denounce Brexit when the right moment arrives.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DavidL said:

    A member of India's Hindu nationalist ruling party has offered a £1million reward to anyone who beheads the lead actress and the director of the yet-to-be released Bollywood film.

    The film Padmavati has sparked controversy over its alleged handling of the relationship between a Hindu queen and a Muslim ruler.

    Suraj Pal Amu, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader from the northern state of Haryana, offered the bounty against actress Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali on Sunday.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5099415/Bollywood-film-faces-attacks-Hindu-groups.html#ixzz4yyZwqs6B

    Puts the squealing about your picture being on the front of the Telegraph into some perspective doesn't it?
    I am not sure any of those "squealed" about it. Quite a nasty comment for you, David?
    I was thinking of the tweets etc referred to on the last thread about how appalling this all was and the inevitable references to Jo Cox. In fairness the only comment I have seen directly from those on that page was one woman boasting she had a bigger picture than another!

    Maybe I got the tone wrong but thank god we do not live in a country where the leader of a supposedly serious party thinks it is ok to put a price on an actress' head. Salman Rushdie may be one of the most conceited men on the planet but we were right to protect him all those years. Putin just murders his opponents. This is a civilised country we should be proud of and hysteria to the contrary is simply wrong.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,528
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    Ahem, from last year.

    The Brexiteers, Juncker’s fifth columnists.

    How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.


    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
    With 80% opposed to the Euro compared to the 52% who voted to Leave the EU highly unlikely.
    Public opinion changes, it isn't static.

    I remember when the polls showed a majority of the public thought we'd eventually join the Euro.
    It was public opposition to the Euro from 1997 to 2001 in polls which was pivotal to Blair keeping sterling, even though polls at the time also showed voters wanted to stay in the EU. Even if we did rejoin the EU (which I still think highly unlikely, only EFTA is really plausible now) we will almost certainly never join the Euro.
    Gordon Brown’s biggest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Euro.
    It’s also why we chose IDS over Ken Clarke for leader in 2001.
  • Good thread Don. I agree 100%.

    "The big worry is about Momentum’s capacity to foment debilitating divisions in local parties."

    That is the nub of it. The fact that Momentum ran slates for positions in my local party in itself set members against one another at a local level in a way that I haven't experienced in 30 years of prior membership. It comes with all the bullying that used to be confined to infighting within the far left, such that party meetings are now thoroughly unpleasant affairs. The default reaction of many (myself included) is to simply disengage and get on with life outside the Labour Party. If the Momentum faction want to exclusively dominate the running of the local party then they are welcome to exclusively do the donkey work of door knocking and leafleting as well.

    The question still arises of whether to vote Labour if Corbyn is leading the party. I will not do so. I understand how decent people ( I know many) will vote Labour but I believe they are profoundly mistaken.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt?lang=en

    Is why Jeremy Hunt is a good bet for next Cons leader.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DavidL said:

    A member of India's Hindu nationalist ruling party has offered a £1million reward to anyone who beheads the lead actress and the director of the yet-to-be released Bollywood film.

    The film Padmavati has sparked controversy over its alleged handling of the relationship between a Hindu queen and a Muslim ruler.

    Suraj Pal Amu, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader from the northern state of Haryana, offered the bounty against actress Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali on Sunday.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5099415/Bollywood-film-faces-attacks-Hindu-groups.html#ixzz4yyZwqs6B

    Puts the squealing about your picture being on the front of the Telegraph into some perspective doesn't it?
    I am not sure any of those "squealed" about it. Quite a nasty comment for you, David?
    I was thinking of the tweets etc referred to on the last thread about how appalling this all was and the inevitable references to Jo Cox. In fairness the only comment I have seen directly from those on that page was one woman boasting she had a bigger picture than another!

    Maybe I got the tone wrong but thank god we do not live in a country where the leader of a supposedly serious party thinks it is ok to put a price on an actress' head. Salman Rushdie may be one of the most conceited men on the planet but we were right to protect him all those years. Putin just murders his opponents. This is a civilised country we should be proud of and hysteria to the contrary is simply wrong.
    Abso bloody lutely
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    edited November 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's crazy to talk about "the interersts of the under 50s" as if they were one homogenous group. Even crazier than those articles that say all millennials love foreign travel and avocado on toast. There is a vast spectrum of all views at all ages.

    As you say, I have already made the point that the young and middle class are turning towards Corbynism as a direct consequence of their own declining living standards in relation to their parents.

    But as you also say, it's a unversal desire to want secure housing and employment - which is why so many working class people voted to leave the EU, as immigrants are mostly in direct competition with them for housing and jobs.

    The Tories can't just, as they did in 2017, run a campaign that points the finger at Corbyn and goes "wah wah, he's a bad man", but what they can do is show people how they will be worse off under Corbynism.

    Tonally, that needs to be a message of ambition. The Conservatives have historically succeeded when they have made it clear that if you work hard you will get on in life. Labour's fortunes reversed under Blair when they clothed themselves in the language of aspiration.

    Corbynism is not a message of aspiration, it is a message of "we will take from those better off than you". The Conservative campagin, therefore, needs to show that _you_ will be the "better off" people that Corbyn is taking from.

    What the Conservatives need to do is fully cost up all of Labour's manifesto and demand answers on exactly where the money will come from, then show ordinary working people how they are actually the people who will have the fruits of their hard work taken off them.

    Such as it always has been with socialism.

    Labour's trick at GE2017 was to convince enough people that they would be the recipients of the free jam, rather than the ones paying for it.

    Excellent post. You have exactly nailed the GE2017 failure to attack Corbynism.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,528
    FPT

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:



    http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/protestors-abuse-left-tory-mp-fearing-safety/

    " A Tory MP told a court he was left fearing for his safety when a protestor sent him abusive emails soon after the murder of Jo Cox. Kingsley Ezeugo, 48, turned up outside Hendon Town Hall shouting that Hendon MP Matthew Offord, 47, was a child molester and a racist. He also unfurled banners branding Mr Offord a paedophile and a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the MP’s constituency office in Bunns Lane. "

    Seriously, what’s wrong with some people?

    And we wonder why the number of good people putting themselves forward to be MPs is diminishing. I’m close to being in favour of all MPs having a policeman with them all day.
    What, to look for porn on their computers?
    LOL, but it’s clear that MPs in general, and female MPs in particular, are receiving communications that they consider to be disturbing and often genuinely threatening.

    IMO two things are required.
    1. A toning down of language by activists and politicians when it comes to individual opponents. See John McDonnell and Esther McVey as examples that should be referred to Parliamentary authorities as unacceptable conduct.
    2. Serious enforcement of social media comments, cf the guy who was jailed for threatening airport security via Twitter, that sort of response should be extended to threats against elected politicians.
  • The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,325
    edited November 2017
    @kyf_100 it is obviously a generalisation, but the reality is, among those under 50 most believe that their interests aligned with Labour more so than the Conservative. This is especially the case with voters under 45. That there may be vast spectrum of views when it comes down to the specifics doesn’t change that. That was her point I was trying to make, and why Labour did well with that group. Right now, much of that group are experiencing collectively the economic issues that I mentioned, and much of that group voted to Remain, especially the under 40s, and we know that Remainers are much more likely to have socially liberal values than Leavers are.

    As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,947

    @kyf_100 it is obviously a generalisation, but the reality is, among those under 50 most believe that their interests aligned with Labour more so than the Conservative. This is especially the case with voters under 45. That there may be vast spectrum of views when it comes down to the specifics doesn’t change that. That was her point I was trying to make, and why Labour did well with that group. Right now, much of that group are having similar economic issues related to the issues that I mentioned, and much of that group voted to Remain, especially the under 40s, and we know that Remainers are much more likely to have socially liberal values than Leavers are.

    As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.

    Most? That implies something like 75%+ of under 50s voted Labour, I thought it was more balanced than that?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    +1
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,528
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,249
    RobD said:

    @kyf_100 it is obviously a generalisation, but the reality is, among those under 50 most believe that their interests aligned with Labour more so than the Conservative. This is especially the case with voters under 45. That there may be vast spectrum of views when it comes down to the specifics doesn’t change that. That was her point I was trying to make, and why Labour did well with that group. Right now, much of that group are having similar economic issues related to the issues that I mentioned, and much of that group voted to Remain, especially the under 40s, and we know that Remainers are much more likely to have socially liberal values than Leavers are.

    As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.

    Most? That implies something like 75%+ of under 50s voted Labour, I thought it was more balanced than that?
    Most surely means 50%+1?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    edited November 2017
    TOPPING said:

    https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt?lang=en

    Is why Jeremy Hunt is a good bet for next Cons leader.

    He has done remarkably well in keeping the NHS quiet and is a very effective media performer. Inevitably, an organisation that is used to growing somewhat faster than the economy as a whole and which in fairness faces ever growing demand from an increasingly elderly, unhealthy and intoxicated population, is now creaking at the seams in a whole variety of ways. That does risk things blowing up in his face at some point.

    For me the next leader should be between him and Gove and, of the 2, he is much the safer pair of hands.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,325
    edited November 2017
    RobD said:

    @kyf_100 it is obviously a generalisation, but the reality is, among those under 50 most believe that their interests aligned with Labour more so than the Conservative. This is especially the case with voters under 45. That there may be vast spectrum of views when it comes down to the specifics doesn’t change that. That was her point I was trying to make, and why Labour did well with that group. Right now, much of that group are having similar economic issues related to the issues that I mentioned, and much of that group voted to Remain, especially the under 40s, and we know that Remainers are much more likely to have socially liberal values than Leavers are.

    As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.

    Most? That implies something like 75%+ of under 50s voted Labour, I thought it was more balanced than that?
    I don’t see how ‘most’ implies specifically that type of number. A majority of a group can be lower than that. But if you want me to change it, then it’s simply more voters than those who voted Conservative see their interests as aligning with Labour.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,947

    RobD said:

    @kyf_100 it is obviously a generalisation, but the reality is, among those under 50 most believe that their interests aligned with Labour more so than the Conservative. This is especially the case with voters under 45. That there may be vast spectrum of views when it comes down to the specifics doesn’t change that. That was her point I was trying to make, and why Labour did well with that group. Right now, much of that group are having similar economic issues related to the issues that I mentioned, and much of that group voted to Remain, especially the under 40s, and we know that Remainers are much more likely to have socially liberal values than Leavers are.

    As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.

    Most? That implies something like 75%+ of under 50s voted Labour, I thought it was more balanced than that?
    I don’t see how ‘most’ implies specifically that type of number. A majority of a group can be lower than that.
    I have always taken it to mean significantly greater than 50% when describing a fraction of something.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,249

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    Yes this seems right to me.
    The theories that so and so was too left wing or not left wing enough seem to have been disproved. Normal people who aren't political obsessives don't really think in that way.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,325
    edited November 2017
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    @kyf_100 it is obviously a generalisation, but the reality is, among those under 50 most believe that their interests aligned with Labour more so than the Conservative. This is especially the case with voters under 45. That there may be vast spectrum of views when it comes down to the specifics doesn’t change that. That was her point I was trying to make, and why Labour did well with that group. Right now, much of that group are having similar economic issues related to the issues that I mentioned, and much of that group voted to Remain, especially the under 40s, and we know that Remainers are much more likely to have socially liberal values than Leavers are.

    As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.

    Most? That implies something like 75%+ of under 50s voted Labour, I thought it was more balanced than that?
    I don’t see how ‘most’ implies specifically that type of number. A majority of a group can be lower than that.
    I have always taken it to mean significantly greater than 50% when describing a fraction of something.
    Really? From what I understand most simply meant majority. But as per my edited post, I’ll change it if you like.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116
    TOPPING said:

    @Cyclefree

    Thanks for the response.

    I have found that on the whole most people aim to do well and to do well in the right way. A minority skate near the edge, while a small minority rely on their supposed intelligence to stay ahead of the game (there are of course no words adequately to describe the idiocy of people who do commit transgressions and document it to each other on IB chat the while.)

    These days, as you are very well aware yourself, the amount of regulations and restrictions governing behaviour, together with the change in culpability to the individual rather than the institution has meant that much bad behaviour has disappeared. Plus the culture has changed also. Greed has not been good for quite some time and a genuine desire to help clients is more pervasive, but maybe that is just the younger generation.

    [Snipped]

    I'm not sure that I would entirely agree with your second paragraph. Some parts have changed for the better. Usually those areas which went through a near-death experience and saw the consequences at first hand. Other areas are still pretty complacent. Some institutions are better than others. There are some who, for all their talk, are still in the mindset of a decade ago. It is too broad brush to say that the culture has changed. A lot of places talk about culture and some have tried to do something about. Others pay lip service to it. And it is not something which you change and then forget about. You have to be constantly improving and maintaining it.

    I can guarantee you that when the next scandal/crisis erupts, the start of it will be down to actions or non-actions happening now.

    The acid test is whether someone senior or who brings in a lot of revenue and misbehaves gets disciplined, up to and including dismissal. Banks have flunked that test in the past. Based on recent experience, they still flunk it. Not always. Not as much as they did. Sometimes they do the right thing. But they are still too willing to make excuses and the wrong choice when there is a conflict between good behaviour and profits.

    And, incidentally, regulators have not been great at living the good culture which they seek to impose on others.

    There have always been rules. It's not the existence of rules which matter. It's whether people understand what the rules are about, why they matter, what they mean for their day-to-day conduct and whether they have the right moral compass and use their judgment when there is no clear answer given by the rules.

    Things are better than they were. Let's face it: they could hardly be any worse. But improvement is patchy, the job is not complete and there is much to be done.

    But when you have trashed your collective reputation as comprehensively as the financial sector did then don't be surprised that, when you need friends, as in the time post-June 23rd, you find that you don't have many.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,249
    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
  • There's a very useful explanation of what happens next in Germany on the Guardian Business Blog at 14:42

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/20/markets-rattled-euro-dax-bunds-german-coalition-talks-collapse-business-live
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Hammond's rather crap, but when his opposite number is a socialist, it's no contest.

    Until and unless Labour is led by someone who doesn't march gleefully with Al-Quds or Stalin banners, they're not even on my electoral radar.

    If Cooper or Kendall were leading them, they'd be up for consideration, given how poor the Government is.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,510
    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
    £3 million a year? Wow. What a massive profit margin.

    And state subsidies? Labour would abolish them? Who would pay then? The passenger? Or would it be Beeching Mark 2?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,463

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Hammond's rather crap, but when his opposite number is a socialist, it's no contest.

    Until and unless Labour is led by someone who doesn't march gleefully with Al-Quds or Stalin banners, they're not even on my electoral radar.

    If Cooper or Kendall were leading them, they'd be up for consideration, given how poor the Government is.

    I'm really not bothered about McDonnell's past associations - I am bothered about how he might run the economy. Clearly, it's not "socialist" by any serious definition of the word. OTOH, I'm not convinced the current model of capitalism is working for me so perhaps some change might not be such a bad thing.

    If your only acceptable form of opposition is Conservative-lite, fine. I think I want to see some change.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Cyclefree

    Thanks forand a genuine desire to help clients is more pervasive, but maybe that is just the younger generation.

    [Snipped]

    I'm not sure that I would entirely agree with your second paragraph. Some parts have changed for the better. Usually those areas which went through a near-death experience and saw the consequences at first hand. Other areas are still pretty complacent. Some institutions are better than others. There are some who, for all their talk, are still in the mindset of a decade ago. It is too broad brush to say that the culture has changed. A lot of places talk about culture and some have tried to do something about. Others pay lip service to it. And it is not something which you change and then forget about. You have to be constantly improving and maintaining it.

    I can guarantee you that when the next scandal/crisis erupts, the start of it will be down to actions or non-actions happening now.

    The acid test is whether someone senior or who brings in a lot of revenue and misbehaves gets disciplined, up to and including dismissal. Banks have flunked that test in the past. Based on recent experience, they still flunk it. Not always. Not as much as they did. Sometimes they do the right thing. But they are still too willing to make excuses and the wrong choice when there is a conflict between good behaviour and profits.

    And, incidentally, regulators have not been great at living the good culture which they seek to impose on others.

    There have always been rules. It's not the existence of rules which matter. It's whether people understand what the rules are about, why they matter, what they mean for their day-to-day conduct and whether they have the right moral compass and use their judgment when there is no clear answer given by the rules.

    Things are better than they were. Let's face it: they could hardly be any worse. But improvement is patchy, the job is not complete and there is much to be done.

    But when you have trashed your collective reputation as comprehensively as the financial sector did then don't be surprised that, when you need friends, as in the time post-June 23rd, you find that you don't have many.
    I think one of the greater tragedies, OK great shames of Br*x*t is that most people in the City will be blissfully untouched by whatever hardships or diminution there may be in our collective standard of living as a result.
  • The argument against Nationalisation is lost - most "private" rail franchises are wholly or partly nationalised. I can sit on my nationalised bus paying my nationalised energy bill and shopping online for my nationalised courier to deliver. That the bus is run by the German government and energy and post by the French is irrelevant - the state demonstrably can run things efficiently.

    As for rail nationalisation its very simple - we the British state already own passenger rail operations. What I would like is to remove the dead hand of the idiots at the DfT from micromanaging everything and that means a return to letting the railwaymen run the railways. An arms length StateCo able to commercially borrow to invest in services as they do everywhere that isn't here has to be the way forward.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,617
    edited November 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
    It's pretty effective, innit?

    Take back control.

    The eurosceptic thatcherite right have played with fire. They're gonna get burnt.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,541

    There's a very useful explanation of what happens next in Germany on the Guardian Business Blog at 14:42

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/20/markets-rattled-euro-dax-bunds-german-coalition-talks-collapse-business-live

    No elections until February. Oh dear.
  • Mr. Stodge, Corbyn's marched with the hammer and sickle as Leader of the Opposition. Would you accept a Conservative doing that with a swastika?

    Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 844

    @kyf_100 it is obviously a generalisation, but the reality is, among those under 50 most believe that their interests aligned with Labour more so than the Conservative. This is especially the case with voters under 45. That there may be vast spectrum of views when it comes down to the specifics doesn’t change that. That was her point I was trying to make, and why Labour did well with that group. Right now, much of that group are experiencing collectively the economic issues that I mentioned, and much of that group voted to Remain, especially the under 40s, and we know that Remainers are much more likely to have socially liberal values than Leavers are.

    As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.

    If you look at what the Conservatives and Labour said in their respective manifestos on housing, you would be hard pressed to stick a king sized rizla between them.

    Labour promised to "invest to build a million new homes". The Tories meanwhile committed themselves to building 1.5m new homes by 2022 (from a base line starting in 2015).

    The very poorly written Conservative manifesto was vague (and IMHO, Miliband-Lite), but also pledged to imporve the quality of housing stock.

    Labour were much more detailed in their manifesto about things such as secure tenancies, rent controls and building more council houses.

    Worthy stuff by and large, although that should be balanced out by two very important things the Conservatives have already done, namely phasing out the tax exemption for BTL landlords, and banning letting agents fees.

    Labour also committed themselves to extending help to buy - a Conservative policy.

    But to suggest that either party had some kind of slam-dunk policy to fix Britain's housing crisis simply isn't true.

    Ultimately it is a supply and demand issue and both parties committed themselves to building similar numbers of new houses, while fiddling round the edges with a few additional policies.

    Where Corbynism really took root was amongst those aged 30-50 who were banking on an inheritance to help them on the property ladder, and feeling that the Dementia Tax was going to take that away from them.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,953
    TGOHF said:

    There's a very useful explanation of what happens next in Germany on the Guardian Business Blog at 14:42

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/20/markets-rattled-euro-dax-bunds-german-coalition-talks-collapse-business-live

    No elections until February. Oh dear.
    The next European Council meeting where there is a German government in place could be June 2018.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,314
    Anorak said:

    Dammit. New Thread. FPT. And First, somehow.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.

    The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
    (a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
    (b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land

    Hence Brexit.

    So Brexit is the fault of remainers? Not the craziest thing we have heard on the subject.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,325
    edited November 2017
    @kyf_100 You’ve gone a bit off there. I didn’t suggest that one party had any kind of slam dunk solution to fix the housing crisis. I simply referred to how many of the under 50s saw things in relation to their economic interests and social values and the two parties. You haven’t exactly refuted that; you’ve given your own take that the Tories aren’t that bad on this issue, and that there aren’t that many differences between Labour and Tory policy. Fair enough if that’s your take, but it is clearly not the take of many of those under 50, and that is the point I am trying to make.

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,355

    Mr. Stodge, Corbyn's marched with the hammer and sickle as Leader of the Opposition. Would you accept a Conservative doing that with a swastika?
    Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.

    Or better still, go back to the days of the good Coalition Government.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,463

    Mr. Stodge, Corbyn's marched with the hammer and sickle as Leader of the Opposition. Would you accept a Conservative doing that with a swastika?

    Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.

    Re: the first point, it wouldn't bother me. I would no more assume the hypothetical Conservative to be a fervent supporter of Naziism than I believe Corbyn to be a fervent supporter of Marxism-Leninism. He may think some aspects of it are reasonable and there are some utopian aspects to Marx that would be nice if practical. However, as far as I can see, Corbyn isn't angling for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and is happy to work within the democratic process here.

    As for change, I disagree. There comes a point when any change is worth more than the status quo - it was the feeling in 1945 and 1979 as well. Nobody really know what voting for Thatcher meant in 1979 but they knew it meant the end of Butskellism. The current model of capitalism as practiced here isn't working. If the alternative is ludicrous Dysonomics - no corporation tax and I can sack anyone who looks at me in a funny way - then I would support the status quo reluctantly.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,463

    The argument against Nationalisation is lost - most "private" rail franchises are wholly or partly nationalised. I can sit on my nationalised bus paying my nationalised energy bill and shopping online for my nationalised courier to deliver. That the bus is run by the German government and energy and post by the French is irrelevant - the state demonstrably can run things efficiently.

    As for rail nationalisation its very simple - we the British state already own passenger rail operations. What I would like is to remove the dead hand of the idiots at the DfT from micromanaging everything and that means a return to letting the railwaymen run the railways. An arms length StateCo able to commercially borrow to invest in services as they do everywhere that isn't here has to be the way forward.

    I agree - there are far more effective models of ownership than wholly private or wholly public. The privatisations of the 1980s were more about a) breaking trade union power and b) trying to encourage a share-owning democracy. I was loosely involved in some of them and to be honest the shares were priced at such a ridiculously low price most people bought up, sold out on Day 1 (often to institutions) and took the profit.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,731
    edited November 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
    The age old problem with nationalisation is that it promises to reinvest profits, but in fact squanders them (generally on producer interests) and has to rely on taxpayer's money or taxpayer's guarantees of loans to do any 'investment'.

    Anyone who remembers BR knows that that privatised railways offer a far better service.
  • Mr. Stodge, *any* change?

    We must absolutely disagree on that. There are countless changes that could make things far worse.

    We also disagree entirely on the hammer and sickle.

    I hope I don't have the opportunity to be proved right on Corbyn.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 844

    @kyf_100 You’ve gone a bit off there. I didn’t suggest that one party had any kind of slam dunk solution to fix the housing crisis. I simply referred to how many of the under 50s saw things in relation to their economic interests and social values and the two parties. You haven’t exactly refuted that; you’ve given your own take that the Tories aren’t that bad on this issue, and that there aren’t that many differences between Labour and Tory policy. Fair enough if that’s your take, but it is clearly not the take of many of those under 50, and that is the point I am trying to make.

    I'll reiterate my point - the 30-50 age group moved towards Corbyn not out of some kind of high minded liberal values, although as I have said elsewhere, the fact that Corbyn was never going to win made it look like a Labour vote was a 'free shot' against an overly authoritarian and illiberal Conservative party under Theresa May.

    That age group moved sharply against the Conservatives as a result of the dementia tax - because they were banking on getting a nice inheritance to help them on / up the housing ladder.

    At the next GE, there will no longer be the option of having a 'free shot' against the Conservatives becuase it may very well lead to a Corbyn government. A successful Conservative campaign will hinge on the Tories being able to demonstrate to as many groups as possible, including that one, how they will be worse off under Labour.
  • TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    McD says it will cost nothing (Marr show yesterday). He plans to take back shares from private investors and give them new government bonds instead. The interest on the bonds will be paid for from the profit from the railways. Investors will get as many bonds as parliament decides is appropriate.

    For 'parliament' read the Labour executive as presumably this will only happen if Lab majority government.

    I've not seen any analysis yet on whether this is all financial bollx.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,314
    Mortimer said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
    The age old problem with nationalisation is that it promises to reinvest profits, but in fact squanders them (generally on producer interests) and has to rely on taxpayer's money or taxpayer's guarantees of loans to do any 'investment'.

    Anyone who remembers BR knows that that privatised railways offer a far better service.
    I remember BR and I don't think that the privatised railways are better in any respect at all.
  • Mortimer said:



    Anyone who remembers BR knows that that privatised railways offer a far better service.

    I remember BR and I don't think that the privatised railways are better in any respect at all.
    Oh come on - for all of the many absurdities of the current system things are significantly better now - in some places. More frequent faster services on newer trains. In other places though things haven't changed at all apart from in one aspect - the huge fare increase.

    And its right that the railways are better, considering that public subsidy has quintupled. If we removed the insanely complex contracts culture you could save a significant amount in efficiency savings alone.
  • stodge said:

    Mr. Stodge, Corbyn's marched with the hammer and sickle as Leader of the Opposition. Would you accept a Conservative doing that with a swastika?

    Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.

    Re: the first point, it wouldn't bother me. I would no more assume the hypothetical Conservative to be a fervent supporter of Naziism than I believe Corbyn to be a fervent supporter of Marxism-Leninism. He may think some aspects of it are reasonable and there are some utopian aspects to Marx that would be nice if practical. However, as far as I can see, Corbyn isn't angling for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and is happy to work within the democratic process here.

    As for change, I disagree. There comes a point when any change is worth more than the status quo - it was the feeling in 1945 and 1979 as well. Nobody really know what voting for Thatcher meant in 1979 but they knew it meant the end of Butskellism. The current model of capitalism as practiced here isn't working. If the alternative is ludicrous Dysonomics - no corporation tax and I can sack anyone who looks at me in a funny way - then I would support the status quo reluctantly.

    I believe that McDonell and many of Corbyn's inner circle could be fairly described as fervent supporters of Marxism-Leninism. As for Corbyn himself he espouses a niave form of Leninism (always oppose capitalist Imperialism and the dominant "imperialist"power, the USA), even if that means supporting vile organisations. He is probably more of a simplistic statist and ultra-redistributionist personally when it comes to the economy.
  • TGOHF said:

    There's a very useful explanation of what happens next in Germany on the Guardian Business Blog at 14:42

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/20/markets-rattled-euro-dax-bunds-german-coalition-talks-collapse-business-live

    No elections until February. Oh dear.
    The next European Council meeting where there is a German government in place could be June 2018.
    For once I agree that could happen but it would cause havoc in Europe and Brexit though maybe increases the chances of us walking away, not that I want that to happen
  • TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    McD says it will cost nothing (Marr show yesterday). He plans to take back shares from private investors and give them new government bonds instead. The interest on the bonds will be paid for from the profit from the railways. Investors will get as many bonds as parliament decides is appropriate.

    For 'parliament' read the Labour executive as presumably this will only happen if Lab majority government.

    I've not seen any analysis yet on whether this is all financial bollx.
    If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....
  • kyf_100 said:

    @kyf_100 You’ve gone a bit off there. I didn’t suggest that one party had any kind of slam dunk solution to fix the housing crisis. I simply referred to how many of the under 50s saw things in relation to their economic interests and social values and the two parties. You haven’t exactly refuted that; you’ve given your own take that the Tories aren’t that bad on this issue, and that there aren’t that many differences between Labour and Tory policy. Fair enough if that’s your take, but it is clearly not the take of many of those under 50, and that is the point I am trying to make.

    I'll reiterate my point - the 30-50 age group moved towards Corbyn not out of some kind of high minded liberal values, although as I have said elsewhere, the fact that Corbyn was never going to win made it look like a Labour vote was a 'free shot' against an overly authoritarian and illiberal Conservative party under Theresa May.

    That age group moved sharply against the Conservatives as a result of the dementia tax - because they were banking on getting a nice inheritance to help them on / up the housing ladder.

    At the next GE, there will no longer be the option of having a 'free shot' against the Conservatives becuase it may very well lead to a Corbyn government. A successful Conservative campaign will hinge on the Tories being able to demonstrate to as many groups as possible, including that one, how they will be worse off under Labour.
    You may well believe that it was all related to the dementia tax. That, however is not what data such as this suggests: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/poll-conservatives-jeremy-corbyn-young-people

    Your analysis implies that it is merely one policy gaffe which messed things up for the Tories, and that voters only voted out of the ‘safety’ that Corbyn wouldn’t win. But the above link demonstrates that the Conservative party have deeper issues that go beyond one policy blunder; that many see them as not being on their side more generally. If your analysis was correct these voters would have returned to the Tories when the dementia tax policy was effectively dropped/put on the back burner, and they certainly wouldn’t have gone on to vote Labour when many of the shock polls were put on front pages showing the gap shortening dramatically. It was also the hypothesis on here too, that these polls would make people realise how close we were to a hung parliament where Corbyn could get into government, and ‘scare’ voters into voting Conservative. It didn’t happen.

    As I said before, the Tory party are not seen as a credible voice among many in this group, and until they are it doesn’t matter what the Conservative campaign says or does to show them how terrible Corbyn is.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,491

    Mortimer said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
    The age old problem with nationalisation is that it promises to reinvest profits, but in fact squanders them (generally on producer interests) and has to rely on taxpayer's money or taxpayer's guarantees of loans to do any 'investment'.

    Anyone who remembers BR knows that that privatised railways offer a far better service.
    I remember BR and I don't think that the privatised railways are better in any respect at all.
    I remember BR ... but we don’t have to take your or my word for how it was.

    We can look at the sitcoms of the era on youtube and see that BR was the butt of huge number of jokes ...

    Rightly so. It was a terrible service with gross over-manning and lack of any respect for the travelling passenger.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,098

    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    McD says it will cost nothing (Marr show yesterday). He plans to take back shares from private investors and give them new government bonds instead. The interest on the bonds will be paid for from the profit from the railways. Investors will get as many bonds as parliament decides is appropriate.

    For 'parliament' read the Labour executive as presumably this will only happen if Lab majority government.

    I've not seen any analysis yet on whether this is all financial bollx.
    If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....
    I'd have thought you would be able to. Of course any takeover bid would have to be passed at board level with a majority of shares in favour (I think that is how they normally work). I'd have thought a ridiculous coupon level to par like 13% would be happily traded in for by shareholders whereas 1% say probably wouldn't.
    What would McDonnell offer, unless he plans to impose the change regardless of a shareholder vote !
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,251

    TGOHF said:

    There's a very useful explanation of what happens next in Germany on the Guardian Business Blog at 14:42

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/20/markets-rattled-euro-dax-bunds-german-coalition-talks-collapse-business-live

    No elections until February. Oh dear.
    The next European Council meeting where there is a German government in place could be June 2018.
    For once I agree that could happen but it would cause havoc in Europe and Brexit though maybe increases the chances of us walking away, not that I want that to happen
    Might the political paralysis in certain European countries not encourage a decision to extend negotiations?
  • If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....

    There are plenty of financial investments which lock your cash in for a defined period of time where you can't swap them for cash, or you can with a penalty. How are these ok and the public sector ones proposed by McDonald not?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,419

    Mortimer said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Tories need to be mindful of continuing to brand Corbynism "hard left". A lot of our policies are so mainstream that they are the policies of the Conservative government in Germany and have been very mainstream Tory as recently as the same 1970s that the Tories think will do the job in warning people away.

    As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
    The age old problem with nationalisation is that it promises to reinvest profits, but in fact squanders them (generally on producer interests) and has to rely on taxpayer's money or taxpayer's guarantees of loans to do any 'investment'.

    Anyone who remembers BR knows that that privatised railways offer a far better service.
    I remember BR and I don't think that the privatised railways are better in any respect at all.
    I remember BR ... but we don’t have to take your or my word for how it was.

    We can look at the sitcoms of the era on youtube and see that BR was the butt of huge number of jokes ...

    Rightly so. It was a terrible service with gross over-manning and lack of any respect for the travelling passenger.
    I seem to remember Robbie Coltrane doing a sketch where he said he had been eating British Rail food for eighteen years, and would continue to eat British Rail food, until his train arrived....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628

    If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....

    There are plenty of financial investments which lock your cash in for a defined period of time where you can't swap them for cash, or you can with a penalty. How are these ok and the public sector ones proposed by McDonald not?

    Choice
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,953
    ToryJim said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a very useful explanation of what happens next in Germany on the Guardian Business Blog at 14:42

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/20/markets-rattled-euro-dax-bunds-german-coalition-talks-collapse-business-live

    No elections until February. Oh dear.
    The next European Council meeting where there is a German government in place could be June 2018.
    For once I agree that could happen but it would cause havoc in Europe and Brexit though maybe increases the chances of us walking away, not that I want that to happen
    Might the political paralysis in certain European countries not encourage a decision to extend negotiations?
    It might make it more likely an extension would be offered, but within the UK it would quickly become a proxy for whether to leave at all.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,238

    If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....

    There are plenty of financial investments which lock your cash in for a defined period of time where you can't swap them for cash, or you can with a penalty. How are these ok and the public sector ones proposed by McDonald not?

    Because you invest voluntarily in such things, you don't have them forced upon you in exchange for assets you already own and which are readily convertible into cash.
  • If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....

    There are plenty of financial investments which lock your cash in for a defined period of time where you can't swap them for cash, or you can with a penalty. How are these ok and the public sector ones proposed by McDonald not?

    Inasmuch as McDonnell is proposing anything coherent, he seems to be proposing compulsory purchase, no doubt at a derisory price, financed by public-sector borrowing on which he seems to be proposing derisory interest rates. Calling them 'confiscation bonds' or whatever he wants to call them doesn't make any difference to the reality.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,947

    If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....

    There are plenty of financial investments which lock your cash in for a defined period of time where you can't swap them for cash, or you can with a penalty. How are these ok and the public sector ones proposed by McDonald not?

    Because you aren’t forced to invest in them?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,156
    stodge said:

    Mr. Stodge, Corbyn's marched with the hammer and sickle as Leader of the Opposition. Would you accept a Conservative doing that with a swastika?

    Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.

    Re: the first point, it wouldn't bother me. I would no more assume the hypothetical Conservative to be a fervent supporter of Naziism than I believe Corbyn to be a fervent supporter of Marxism-Leninism. He may think some aspects of it are reasonable and there are some utopian aspects to Marx that would be nice if practical. However, as far as I can see, Corbyn isn't angling for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and is happy to work within the democratic process here.

    As for change, I disagree. There comes a point when any change is worth more than the status quo - it was the feeling in 1945 and 1979 as well. Nobody really know what voting for Thatcher meant in 1979 but they knew it meant the end of Butskellism. The current model of capitalism as practiced here isn't working. If the alternative is ludicrous Dysonomics - no corporation tax and I can sack anyone who looks at me in a funny way - then I would support the status quo reluctantly.

    Certainly we are now at a political turning point like 1979 or 1945. I think there can be little doubt about that. It's not yet clear what direction we will turn in - it could be toward Corbynism or it could be toward a nationalistic isolationism favoured by the hard Brexit supporters. I think the former is probably more likely but it's too early to judge.

    The image of a burned out Grenfell Tower looming above the mansions of the billionaires in Kensington is as powerfully symbolic of what has gone wrong as the as the images of uncollected rubbish in the winter of discontent or the Jarrow marchers of the 1930s.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,098

    If you can't swop those bonds for cold hard cash then it is indeed bollx....

    There are plenty of financial investments which lock your cash in for a defined period of time where you can't swap them for cash, or you can with a penalty. How are these ok and the public sector ones proposed by McDonald not?

    As I wrote below the 'takeover' is agreed by a shareholder vote then I'd have thought it OK... what coupon/yield to par level will McD offer though ?
    Bit of a lack of retail bond new issues at the moment, so there could be an appetite.

    I don't own any of the railways actively so the above might be wrong, there is a lack of new issue retail bonds recently though :

    http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-markets/retail-bonds/newrecent/newrecent.htm

    So there could be a ready market..
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,419
    PClipp said:

    Mr. Stodge, Corbyn's marched with the hammer and sickle as Leader of the Opposition. Would you accept a Conservative doing that with a swastika?
    Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.

    Or better still, go back to the days of the good Coalition Government.
    What, the Churchill War Ministry you mean?

    Or do you mean that LibDem thingy in 2010, that blocked all discussion of our membership of the EU, allowing UKIP to fill the vacuum and so ultimately to the UK leaving the EU? That one?
  • stodge said:

    Mr. Stodge, Corbyn's marched with the hammer and sickle as Leader of the Opposition. Would you accept a Conservative doing that with a swastika?

    Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.

    Re: the first point, it wouldn't bother me. I would no more assume the hypothetical Conservative to be a fervent supporter of Naziism than I believe Corbyn to be a fervent supporter of Marxism-Leninism. He may think some aspects of it are reasonable and there are some utopian aspects to Marx that would be nice if practical. However, as far as I can see, Corbyn isn't angling for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and is happy to work within the democratic process here.

    As for change, I disagree. There comes a point when any change is worth more than the status quo - it was the feeling in 1945 and 1979 as well. Nobody really know what voting for Thatcher meant in 1979 but they knew it meant the end of Butskellism. The current model of capitalism as practiced here isn't working. If the alternative is ludicrous Dysonomics - no corporation tax and I can sack anyone who looks at me in a funny way - then I would support the status quo reluctantly.

    We didn't then have PR any more than we do now. So we weren't offered a choice between two parties

    1 Baldwin-Churchill-Butler-Macleod-Macmillan-Heath-Gilmour-Heseltine-Patten
    vs.
    2 Thatcher-Howe-Joseph-Tebbit-Powell-etc.

    In 1970/74 it was party 1 on offer; in 1979 it was 2.

    Party 2 enunciated 'the market will provide'. This prediction has proved to be, er, bollocks. It is about as valid as the Soviet Union's conviction that the future was one of collective farms and state-owned food shops.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,607

    Mortimer said:

    rkrkrk said:

    TOPPING said:



    snip.

    As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.

    It is an indication of the state of play that the Cons are going to have to articulate quite carefully the difference in spending plans between the two parties. I'm sure that if I went through the Lab manifesto the costs would pretty soon skyrocket but I know that very few Lab voters will be doing that either and the appeal must be far simpler to grasp and delivered in an attention-grabbing way.

    How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?

    *innocent face*
    Or how much it would save?
    The age old problem with nationalisation is that it promises to reinvest profits, but in fact squanders them (generally on producer interests) and has to rely on taxpayer's money or taxpayer's guarantees of loans to do any 'investment'.

    Anyone who remembers BR knows that that privatised railways offer a far better service.
    I remember BR and I don't think that the privatised railways are better in any respect at all.
    I remember them too.

    They were expensive, unreliable and the butt of many sarcastic jokes about late arrival, poor food, strikes, poor staff attitude, shabby stations, dirty carriages and much more. You have to go back to the golden age up to (I guess) the early to mid 1950s to find that successful romantic image having fulfilment on the railways. Less demand, slower pace of life and a more polite society were in part responsible for the false memory that some have.

    I knew a couple of BR drivers. Nothing wrong with them at all, nice blokes. En masse the rail industry was unhinged.

    Reggie Perrin is a good example of how reliably unreliable BR were. You could set your watch by the 20 minute late arrival of your commuter train.
  • philiph said:

    I remember them too.

    They were expensive, unreliable and the butt of many sarcastic jokes about late arrival, poor food, strikes, poor staff attitude, shabby stations, dirty carriages and much more. You have to go back to the golden age up to (I guess) the early to mid 1950s to find that successful romantic image having fulfilment on the railways. Less demand, slower pace of life and a more polite society were in part responsible for the false memory that some have.

    I knew a couple of BR drivers. Nothing wrong with them at all, nice blokes. En masse the rail industry was unhinged.

    Reggie Perrin is a good example of how reliably unreliable BR were. You could set your watch by the 20 minute late arrival of your commuter train.

    And of course no compensation if your train was cancelled or five hours late.
This discussion has been closed.