Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The juvenile CON attacks on Corbyn have simply reinforced the

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 21 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The juvenile CON attacks on Corbyn have simply reinforced the LAB leader

Can someone pls fetch a bodybag for Steve Baker we have a casualty here pic.twitter.com/mzp4p1IYGy

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,334
    edited February 21
    First.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,741
    edited February 21

    First?

    As long as you watched the clip before posting.
  • Agree entirely with Mike on this. But even more so I do wonder why the Tories seem intent on trying to go for Corbyn on these side issues about what he may or may not have done in the past rather than on the central issues of what he says he means to do in the future. The only people these attacks play to are those who have already hold the belief that Corbyn is a traitor or a terrorist sympathiser. If you don't already hold those views after all the attacks of the last couple of years then you ae not going to change your mind now.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,334

    First?

    As long as you watched the clip before posting.
    Is there going to be a test? Goody. I love tests!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    Agree entirely with Mike on this. But even more so I do wonder why the Tories seem intent on trying to go for Corbyn on these side issues about what he may or may not have done in the past rather than on the central issues of what he says he means to do in the future. The only people these attacks play to are those who have already hold the belief that Corbyn is a traitor or a terrorist sympathiser. If you don't already hold those views after all the attacks of the last couple of years then you ae not going to change your mind now.

    I entirely agree.

    That said, I suspect the legal action will be quietly dropped. There is unlikely to be any good side for Corbyn to come from airing his history from the 1980s even if he were to win.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 21
    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 1,973
    As I said last thread, the Corbyn-is-a-spy thing is the new Birther movement.

    It demeans and discredits those who propagate it.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,752
    Makes you appreciate just how good Blair and Cameron were at managing the media, infuriating as it was at the time.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 495
    edited February 21
    "There is a lot that the Conservatives could learn from the Labour government of 1997-2010 when it come to media management."

    Not so sure about this. Do we really want to see "party robots" repeating the same nonsense 24 hours a day. It worked for Labour for the first few years but by the time Blair had gone I think the population became heartily sick of it all.

    It has to be remembered that Labour as your comment suggests left a greater impact in media management than perhaps any positive policy decisions such as the minimum wage for instance. I do think Labour had a mixed record between 1997 - 2010 but it was not all bad and I did not vote for them in that period.

    I hope I never see a political party trying to control the media as it did for a few years after 1997. If they had spent as much time trying to make positive change they may of had more of a legacy. That said, I have always had the suspicion Labour wanted to be in government perpetually from 1997 onwards and introduced things like postal voting to attain this. They would not be the first political party to attempt this but a change of government is always a positive thing as it keeps the politicians on their toes!
  • I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,334
    Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.

    And you class that as a good thing?

    As I've said passim, Tom Watson is firmly embedded within the Leveson mess, and he's not been too shy in propagating the nastiest smears about Conservative politicians. Hes exactly the sort of person we don't want influencing the shape of our future media.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,482
    edited February 21
    I thought a lot of Steve Baker once. Then I realised who he was connected with...........
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675

    I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.

    I think that's a triumph of hope over(reasonable expectation, Kitchen. To most of the electorate this stuff is ancient, irrelevant history.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425

    Agree entirely with Mike on this. But even more so I do wonder why the Tories seem intent on trying to go for Corbyn on these side issues about what he may or may not have done in the past rather than on the central issues of what he says he means to do in the future. The only people these attacks play to are those who have already hold the belief that Corbyn is a traitor or a terrorist sympathiser. If you don't already hold those views after all the attacks of the last couple of years then you ae not going to change your mind now.

    I entirely agree.

    That said, I suspect the legal action will be quietly dropped. There is unlikely to be any good side for Corbyn to come from airing his history from the 1980s even if he were to win.
    I expect so. Corbyn turns out to be a slick PR operator. He effectively.kills the story while making his opponents look like dishonest witch hunters



  • I think that's a triumph of hope over(reasonable expectation, Kitchen. To most of the electorate this stuff is ancient, irrelevant history.

    You're right, Ben. Anyone under 40 probably does not give a monkey's. As I said though, the fact you have so many marginals this time round means you don't need that many people to be convinced to have a disproportionate effect
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,899
    Am surprised that the Tories haven't been implying that Corbyn has enjoyed carnal relations with goats, simply to force the old fool to stand up and deny it on live tv.

    With respect to the Stasi, The Guardian carried this story in January about the difficulty of scanning shredded files.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/03/stasi-files-east-germany-archivists-losing-hope-solving-worlds-biggest-puzzle

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 21

    Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.

    And you class that as a good thing?

    As I've said passim, Tom Watson is firmly embedded within the Leveson mess, and he's not been too shy in propagating the nastiest smears about Conservative politicians. Hes exactly the sort of person we don't want influencing the shape of our future media.
    It's an observation.

    My personal view is leveson2 is necessary. That's not the same as thinking it's a good thing - I'm quite sad that it's necessary, actually.

    I'm also not sure it'll achieve very much in the world of social media/twitter.

    But yeah, I think it's now almost inevitable.

    Personally, I'd push for a compulsory, legally underpinned code of conduct for all "people with influence" to punish those who engage in fact-free witchhunts and extreme distortions. Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate and lie.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,028
    edited February 21


    I think that's a triumph of hope over(reasonable expectation, Kitchen. To most of the electorate this stuff is ancient, irrelevant history.

    You're right, Ben. Anyone under 40 probably does not give a monkey's. As I said though, the fact you have so many marginals this time round means you don't need that many people to be convinced to have a disproportionate effect
    Dixiedean:
    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    Andrew Neil in his full pomp in that interview. I like the bit where be puts down the Labour man wittering on about the government being on the ropes with "I've for the government on the ropes and you've just interrupted me"
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    Off topic, if anyone would like to see the TPP (now the CPTPP), here it is. For anoraks only.

    http://bit.ly/2CARJKe
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    edited February 21

    I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.

    What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise? As Ben Bradley doesn't seem to hold to his assertion, I would say Corbyn has already won. It looks both men expect Bradley to lose if it ever got to court. Having made his point Corbyn.could let the matter drop, he could push Bradley for the apology and charity payment or he could actually go to court. There's a risk to Corbyn in gong to court but a much bigger one for Bradley on the assumption he would lose.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,012
    FF43 said:

    I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.

    What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise? As Ben Bradley doesn't seem to hold to his assertion, I would say Corbyn has already won. It looks both men expect Bradley to lose if it ever got to court. Having made his point Corbyn.could let the matter drop, he could push Bradley for the apology and charity payment or he could actually go to court. There's a risk to Corbyn in gong to court but a much bigger one for Bradley on the assumption he would lose.
    What if CCHQ decide that a prolonged court case would be of value in what it could expose and the prolonged coverage it would generate, regardless of the outcome, and thus agree up front to fund Bradley's costs in order to dare Corbyn to follow through?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    edited February 21
    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
  • Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 955
    If it comes to smearing and being economical with the truth then Steve Baker knows a thing or two having had to apologise to Parliament about his comments. But there again he's a Brexit minister and it's all bread and butter to them.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425

    FF43 said:

    I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.

    What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise? As Ben Bradley doesn't seem to hold to his assertion, I would say Corbyn has already won. It looks both men expect Bradley to lose if it ever got to court. Having made his point Corbyn.could let the matter drop, he could push Bradley for the apology and charity payment or he could actually go to court. There's a risk to Corbyn in gong to court but a much bigger one for Bradley on the assumption he would lose.
    What if CCHQ decide that a prolonged court case would be of value in what it could expose and the prolonged coverage it would generate, regardless of the outcome, and thus agree up front to fund Bradley's costs in order to dare Corbyn to follow through?
    It would be fun for the politics anoraks. I wouldn't assume the Conservative Party would win that war. It gives Corbyn a platform and he is a surprisingly good PR operator for a conviction leftist.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    One of Jezzas campaigning strenghs is that he concentrates on policy, and doesn't make personal attacks. This comes over well as politeness and seriousness.

  • The most important point of the whole article is in the final paragraph.

    "The EU has the substance of traditional liberal democratic institutions, but it does not have the essence of liberal democracy, which rests on the relentless daily struggle of public opinion, causing and justifying law-making and government and administration."

    The problem is that the EU is moving further away from rather than towards that objective. Indeed for the EU it is not an objective.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    They appear so to you Big_G but the truth is to many people the policies set out in the Labour Manifesto last year seem very sound and sensible. Indeed many of them are likely to be stealthily adopted by the Tories before GE 2022.
  • Pong said:

    Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate and lie.

    Actually it is. Not least because there are so few uncontested truths in the world. Who are you going to have decide what is and isn't a lie, or even what is and isn't hate?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675

    FF43 said:

    I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.

    What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise? As Ben Bradley doesn't seem to hold to his assertion, I would say Corbyn has already won. It looks both men expect Bradley to lose if it ever got to court. Having made his point Corbyn.could let the matter drop, he could push Bradley for the apology and charity payment or he could actually go to court. There's a risk to Corbyn in gong to court but a much bigger one for Bradley on the assumption he would lose.
    What if CCHQ decide that a prolonged court case would be of value in what it could expose and the prolonged coverage it would generate, regardless of the outcome, and thus agree up front to fund Bradley's costs in order to dare Corbyn to follow through?
    I can't see it being a very long court case, based on the evidence to date.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    One of Jezzas campaigning strenghs is that he concentrates on policy, and doesn't make personal attacks. This comes over well as politeness and seriousness.

    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,792
    So somewhere in a Moscow basement is a file containing details of British manhole cover designs from 1920 to 1965.
  • Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    They appear so to you Big_G but the truth is to many people the policies set out in the Labour Manifesto last year seem very sound and sensible. Indeed many of them are likely to be stealthily adopted by the Tories before GE 2022.
    It did not come under fire and it will next time
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,457
    edited February 21
    We were told on here and elsewhere time and time again that juvenile attacks on Gordon Brown wouldn’t work and that he was a titan of good governance and integrity. All the way up until he was smashed at the election.

    Corbyn starting from a far lower base - these blows are cumulative.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,028

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    One of Jezzas campaigning strenghs is that he concentrates on policy, and doesn't make personal attacks. This comes over well as politeness and seriousness.

    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy
    Depends if anyone can hear such a debate. Last time it was drowned out by cries of IRA! If it is a similar chorus of Commie Spy! next time then he may well get a free run.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 68
    Only Corbyn and the relevant security services know the truth about his involvement with Warsaw Pact agencies in the 1980s.

    For what it is worth my feeling is that he's clean, if only because he wouldn't have had much of value in terms of intelligence to pass across.

    The problem for him will come in the lead up to the next GE because if something else is found that would paint him in less than a patriotic light this particular episode will be resurrected in voters minds even though he's not guilty.

  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 666

    The most important point of the whole article is in the final paragraph.

    "The EU has the substance of traditional liberal democratic institutions, but it does not have the essence of liberal democracy, which rests on the relentless daily struggle of public opinion, causing and justifying law-making and government and administration."

    The problem is that the EU is moving further away from rather than towards that objective. Indeed for the EU it is not an objective.
    When was it ever not. Ask the Irish the Dutch and the French what happened when they voted the wrong way - they were ignored.
  • dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    One of Jezzas campaigning strenghs is that he concentrates on policy, and doesn't make personal attacks. This comes over well as politeness and seriousness.

    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy
    Depends if anyone can hear such a debate. Last time it was drowned out by cries of IRA! If it is a similar chorus of Commie Spy! next time then he may well get a free run.< /blockquote>

    I agree on that one and it is not necessary. Under a more moderate leader there are some policies I could accept from labour, but not with Corbyn/McDonnell in charge
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,752

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    One of Jezzas campaigning strenghs is that he concentrates on policy, and doesn't make personal attacks. This comes over well as politeness and seriousness.

    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy
    He's read Marx. He can't be that economically illiterate. And it isn't as if many Tories are that knowledgeable on the subject. And does anyone actually understand economics anyway? I haven't noticed that economics graduates have much more money than anyone else.
  • BBC News interesting tonight. Commenting favourably on positive economic news on productivity and wage growth whilst the public finances are looking better. They followed that with a piece on dreadful poverty and child malnutrition in the socialist paradise of Venezuela. Almost a Tory PPB!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.

    And you class that as a good thing?

    As I've said passim, Tom Watson is firmly embedded within the Leveson mess, and he's not been too shy in propagating the nastiest smears about Conservative politicians. Hes exactly the sort of person we don't want influencing the shape of our future media.
    It's an observation.

    My personal view is leveson2 is necessary. That's not the same as thinking it's a good thing - I'm quite sad that it's necessary, actually.

    I'm also not sure it'll achieve very much in the world of social media/twitter.

    But yeah, I think it's now almost inevitable.

    Personally, I'd push for a compulsory, legally underpinned code of conduct for all "people with influence" to punish those who engage in fact-free witchhunts and extreme distortions. Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate and lie.
    Er.... yes it is. Freedom of speech is the freedom to think and say what you like, however loathsome it may be, provided you do not incite violence.

    And if lying were to be made punishable Corbyn would be among the first to be punished since, however polite he is, he has on numerous occasions said things which are demonstrably wrong about himself and what he has said and done and not said and done.

    The way to answer that is through debate not by trying to criminalise something you disagree with. Or dislike, however strongly you might dislike it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    edited February 21
    On topic, Mike is right. Perhaps those Tories attacking him (Corbyn - not Mike) should remember the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    One of Jezzas campaigning strenghs is that he concentrates on policy, and doesn't make personal attacks. This comes over well as politeness and seriousness.

    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy
    He's read Marx. He can't be that economically illiterate. And it isn't as if many Tories are that knowledgeable on the subject. And does anyone actually understand economics anyway? I haven't noticed that economics graduates have much more money than anyone else.
    They don't call it the dismal science for nothing.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,125
    edited February 21
    The Conservatives should have just stayed away from it. The difficulty is one of terminology. agents versus contacts, approaches versus results and, most of all. value of contact.

    The media often don't so subtlety so they can throw it about.

    Would it really surprise anyone if Corbyn knowingly had contacts with Soviet Bloc intelligence officials on multiple occasions? The question is what he saw as the point and what did he provide.

    The outside agency can make up its own mind as to his usefulness.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,738
    Is the game up for Theresa?
  • GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
  • Corbyn is most unwise to take legal action.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?


    No.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425

    FF43 said:

    I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.

    What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise? As Ben Bradley doesn't seem to hold to his assertion, I would say Corbyn has already won. It looks both men expect Bradley to lose if it ever got to court. Having made his point Corbyn.could let the matter drop, he could push Bradley for the apology and charity payment or he could actually go to court. There's a risk to Corbyn in gong to court but a much bigger one for Bradley on the assumption he would lose.
    What if CCHQ decide that a prolonged court case would be of value in what it could expose and the prolonged coverage it would generate, regardless of the outcome, and thus agree up front to fund Bradley's costs in order to dare Corbyn to follow through?
    I can't see it being a very long court case, based on the evidence to date.
    The idea is that Corbyn would lose by winning the court case. A pyrrhic victory. But in pushing this case the conservatives might have a pyrrhic victory of their own. A double agent pyrrhic victory as it were.
  • Cyclefree said:

    On topic, Mike is right. Perhaps those Tories attacking him (Corbyn - not Mike) should remember the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

    Ah yes the moral of the boy who cried wolf, that you should never tell the same lie twice.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Yah, the ERG are going to topple her.

    I'm now on Team Theresa.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 495
    TGOHF said:

    We were told on here and elsewhere time and time again that juvenile attacks on Gordon Brown wouldn’t work and that he was a titan of good governance and integrity. All the way up until he was smashed at the election.

    Corbyn starting from a far lower base - these blows are cumulative.

    I think Gordon Brown did for himself in the campaign in 2010 when he met that bigoted women. The media war was much more closely fought than the result would suggest up to that point. I think the ground game was more one sided and for Labour it was just a case of trying to keep as many seats as they could, after all Brown could have stayed as PM if he had won 290 seats and the Lib Dems had been amenable.
  • The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,738

    GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
    Seems to be a lot of unhappiness with her never-ending "transition" position?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    I hear what you are saying Mike and I think in most circumstances I would agree with you. But Corbyn has backed himself into a corner. What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise (maybe he has already)? If he does not follow through, he loses face and looks as though he has something to hide. But if does sue, who knows what comes out in any trial? If might not be that he took money from the East Germans etc but there might be enough out there that looks embarrassing / difficult to explain. Presumably, all his other links (Hamas, Iran, RT etc) would also be considered fair game.

    I would also disagree with the point there is no logic to what the Tories are doing. 11 seats had less than a 100 majority, 97 seats were won with a majority of 5% or less. In quite a few seats, the vote analysis suggests a proportion of ex-UKIP supporters went back to Labour. Having JC branded as a spy might make them change their vote or, at least, not vote Labour.

    I am not sure we have heard the last of this story.

    What does he do if Ben Bradley does not apologise? As Ben Bradley doesn't seem to hold to his assertion, I would say Corbyn has already won. It looks both men expect Bradley to lose if it ever got to court. Having made his point Corbyn.could let the matter drop, he could push Bradley for the apology and charity payment or he could actually go to court. There's a risk to Corbyn in gong to court but a much bigger one for Bradley on the assumption he would lose.
    What if CCHQ decide that a prolonged court case would be of value in what it could expose and the prolonged coverage it would generate, regardless of the outcome, and thus agree up front to fund Bradley's costs in order to dare Corbyn to follow through?
    It would be fun for the politics anoraks. I wouldn't assume the Conservative Party would win that war. It gives Corbyn a platform and he is a surprisingly good PR operator for a conviction leftist.
    A libel case does not give Corbyn a platform. It potentially causes him as many problems as the defendant not least because all his utterances will be very carefully analysed to see whether they are true or not. He cannot get away with barnstorming campaigning speeches in a courtroom.

    If Baker has no evidence for his allegations then he should apologise quickly and be done with it. Neither he nor Corbyn should overplay their hand, a risk that parties to litigation tend to fall into.
  • TGOHF said:

    We were told on here and elsewhere time and time again that juvenile attacks on Gordon Brown wouldn’t work and that he was a titan of good governance and integrity. All the way up until he was smashed at the election.

    Corbyn starting from a far lower base - these blows are cumulative.

    I don't believe the juvenile attacks did work. What worked was him being in charge when the financial crash came and the degree to which the public saw him as being responsible for our poor state of readiness. He also suffered from his personality which was seen to be clunking and dour in comparison to Cameron. I don't really see that any of the more specific personal attacks on him worked very well at all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    edited February 21

    TGOHF said:

    We were told on here and elsewhere time and time again that juvenile attacks on Gordon Brown wouldn’t work and that he was a titan of good governance and integrity. All the way up until he was smashed at the election.

    Corbyn starting from a far lower base - these blows are cumulative.

    I don't believe the juvenile attacks did work. What worked was him being in charge when the financial crash came and the degree to which the public saw him as being responsible for our poor state of readiness. He also suffered from his personality which was seen to be clunking and dour in comparison to Cameron. I don't really see that any of the more specific personal attacks on him worked very well at all.
    Indeed the clumsy attacks on Brown for his handwritten letters to soldiers families gained Brown some sympathy.
  • On topic, it is embarrassing.

    It is about as effective as Labour's attack on posho Cameron.

    Or the Dave as Gene Hunt attacks.
  • GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
    Seems to be a lot of unhappiness with her never-ending "transition" position?
    Spokesman has said tonight the transistion will be no more than 2 years

    Fact is TM is the only way Brexit will happen. Topple her and Brexit falls as the HOC will kill it
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    edited February 21

    The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.

    It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.

    Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
  • Rees-Mogg declares war on Mrs May.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg: Brexit transition strategy document is a 'perversion of democracy'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/21/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-transition-strategy-document-perversion/
  • Foxy said:

    The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.

    It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.

    Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
    The rise in the national living wage and tax allowances has been considerable and these are due to continue in April 2018. Once the public sector pay cap has gone as well the feel good factor could just start to return
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,419



    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy

    Brexit has shown that warnings of economic meltdown aren't believed and don't work.

  • Rees-Mogg declares war on Mrs May.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg: Brexit transition strategy document is a 'perversion of democracy'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/21/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-transition-strategy-document-perversion/

    All hot air
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
    Seems to be a lot of unhappiness with her never-ending "transition" position?
    Spokesman has said tonight the transistion will be no more than 2 years

    Fact is TM is the only way Brexit will happen. Topple her and Brexit falls as the HOC will kill it
    It was the EU27 that said Transition ends 21 month post Brexit, as that matches the budget round, we just fell into line. The reality is that the EU27 dictate the terms and we decide either to swallow them or have car crash Brexit.
  • Foxy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
    Seems to be a lot of unhappiness with her never-ending "transition" position?
    Spokesman has said tonight the transistion will be no more than 2 years

    Fact is TM is the only way Brexit will happen. Topple her and Brexit falls as the HOC will kill it
    It was the EU27 that said Transition ends 21 month post Brexit, as that matches the budget round, we just fell into line. The reality is that the EU27 dictate the terms and we decide either to swallow them or have car crash Brexit.
    I have no problem with that - seems very sensible
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466

    Rees-Mogg declares war on Mrs May.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg: Brexit transition strategy document is a 'perversion of democracy'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/21/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-transition-strategy-document-perversion/

    Paywalled. Pity. I always enjoy a Mogg rant.
  • Dura_Ace said:



    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy

    Brexit has shown that warnings of economic meltdown aren't believed and don't work.

    I think you may find Corbyn McDonnell axis will
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    Foxy said:

    The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.

    It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.

    Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
    The rise in the national living wage and tax allowances has been considerable and these are due to continue in April 2018. Once the public sector pay cap has gone as well the feel good factor could just start to return
    As I point out, it didn't work for Major 21 years ago.

    Still plenty of austerity booked to come.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Anyway the debate I went to this evening was "The Left has right on its side". Proposers: Stella Creasy and George Monbiot. Opposers: Roger Scruton and Kwasi Kwarteng

    Before the speeches we were asked to vote and 37% were against the motion, 31% undecided and 32% for.

    After, it was 57% against, 6% undecided and 37% for.

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway the debate I went to this evening was "The Left has right on its side". Proposers: Stella Creasy and George Monbiot. Opposers: Roger Scruton and Kwasi Kwarteng

    Before the speeches we were asked to vote and 37% were against the motion, 31% undecided and 32% for.

    After, it was 57% against, 6% undecided and 37% for.

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    Stella Creasy is a star. She always comes over as sincere and empathetic.

  • Cyclefree said:

    Anyway the debate I went to this evening was "The Left has right on its side". Proposers: Stella Creasy and George Monbiot. Opposers: Roger Scruton and Kwasi Kwarteng

    Before the speeches we were asked to vote and 37% were against the motion, 31% undecided and 32% for.

    After, it was 57% against, 6% undecided and 37% for.

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    Interesting post as ever and quality debates are the missing element in our political discourse
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    However, one needs to be careful of the opposite too. Over the top attacks on Corbyn meant when he appeared on the One Show and didn't punch the interviewer or relieve himself into a plant pot may have given the impression he had been unfairly maligned.
    People have sympathy with an underdog and there is a danger of easily exceeding low expectations.

    @dixiedean

    I agree. All the ludicrous stories a year ago about Jezza just looked so false and added to his aura during the campaign.

    Tories (and LDs) should concentrate on policy. They are not going to win on character or personality, astonishingly.
    They shouldn't need to - Corbyn's policies are utterly bananas
    One of Jezzas campaigning strenghs is that he concentrates on policy, and doesn't make personal attacks. This comes over well as politeness and seriousness.

    And next time he will not get a free run with his economic illiteracy
    The Tories have added £1.3 trillion to the national debt, and are proposing to run a deficit until the early 20s, so toss another couple of hundred billion extra on top of that. That's while still borrowing the thick end of a billion quid a week, all of which is going to service the interest on the national debt. All this towards the end of the natural business cycle.

    Glass houses etc.
  • John_M said:

    Rees-Mogg declares war on Mrs May.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg: Brexit transition strategy document is a 'perversion of democracy'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/21/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-transition-strategy-document-perversion/

    Paywalled. Pity. I always enjoy a Mogg rant.
    If you register, you get one free article a week.
  • Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway the debate I went to this evening was "The Left has right on its side". Proposers: Stella Creasy and George Monbiot. Opposers: Roger Scruton and Kwasi Kwarteng

    Before the speeches we were asked to vote and 37% were against the motion, 31% undecided and 32% for.

    After, it was 57% against, 6% undecided and 37% for.

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    Stella Creasy is a star. She always comes over as sincere and empathetic.

    And under threat from momentum in Corbyn's comrade world
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,397
    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway the debate I went to this evening was "The Left has right on its side". Proposers: Stella Creasy and George Monbiot. Opposers: Roger Scruton and Kwasi Kwarteng

    Before the speeches we were asked to vote and 37% were against the motion, 31% undecided and 32% for.

    After, it was 57% against, 6% undecided and 37% for.

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    Thanks for this report. I guess there will be a more detailed summary in the Spectator or its website.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Foxy said:

    The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.

    It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.

    Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
    It didn't work for Major because Labour was run by Mr Blair who didn't seem like a threat to people's finances or aspirations.

    Whether the voters will take the same view in relation to a Corbyn-led Labour is what is unclear. It depends on (a) his manifesto; (b) how far they believe him; and (c) their view of the Tories.

    Conventional thinking now has it that the voters looked at Corbyn and were not scared by what they saw; indeed they saw much that was attractive. And that may be what happens next time.

    Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 666
    edited February 21
    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway the debate I went to this evening was "The Left has right on its side". Proposers: Stella Creasy and George Monbiot. Opposers: Roger Scruton and Kwasi Kwarteng

    Before the speeches we were asked to vote and 37% were against the motion, 31% undecided and 32% for.

    After, it was 57% against, 6% undecided and 37% for.

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    That debate is on 5 March at 7pm in Westminster - tickets are £30 or £15 for students,

    https://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/if-you-believe-you-are-a-citizen-of-the-world-you-are-a-citizen-of-nowhere/

    They also have one on a second Brexit referendum later in March on 22nd. Gina Miller vs Isabel Oakeshott - should be fun!

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.

    It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.

    Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
    It didn't work for Major because Labour was run by Mr Blair who didn't seem like a threat to people's finances or aspirations.

    Whether the voters will take the same view in relation to a Corbyn-led Labour is what is unclear. It depends on (a) his manifesto; (b) how far they believe him; and (c) their view of the Tories.

    Conventional thinking now has it that the voters looked at Corbyn and were not scared by what they saw; indeed they saw much that was attractive. And that may be what happens next time.

    Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way.
    Sure, we are in the phoney war phase between elections, so who knows?

    Many voters vote on non economic factors, but even those that do, do not seem to find Corbynism any more threatening than the Tory Brexiteers. Why should we listen to their scare predictions for Corbynism while also accepting them rubbishing the Brexit economic forecasts?

    The truth is that the Tories are trashing their 2 strongest suits: economic credibility and administrative competence.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,397
    "Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way. "
    And another way is that many saw their vote as a cost-free protest because the Tories were so far ahead in the polls that a Corbyn victory was just not on the cards.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    Cyclefree said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.

    And you class that as a good thing?

    As I've said passim, Tom Watson is firmly embedded within the Leveson mess, and he's not been too shy in propagating the nastiest smears about Conservative politicians. Hes exactly the sort of person we don't want influencing the shape of our future media.
    It's an observation.

    My personal view is leveson2 is necessary. That's not the same as thinking it's a good thing - I'm quite sad that it's necessary, actually.

    I'm also not sure it'll achieve very much in the world of social media/twitter.

    But yeah, I think it's now almost inevitable.

    Personally, I'd push for a compulsory, legally underpinned code of conduct for all "people with influence" to punish those who engage in fact-free witchhunts and extreme distortions. Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate and lie.
    Er.... yes it is. Freedom of speech is the freedom to think and say what you like, however loathsome it may be, provided you do not incite violence.

    And if lying were to be made punishable Corbyn would be among the first to be punished since, however polite he is, he has on numerous occasions said things which are demonstrably wrong about himself and what he has said and done and not said and done.

    The way to answer that is through debate not by trying to criminalise something you disagree with. Or dislike, however strongly you might dislike it.
    While I agree with the thrust of you remarks, I am not so sure about your 'Corbyn among the first to be punished' assertion.
    Not because Corbyn is a paragon of truth telling (far from it) - but because those who actually bring in a system of censorship are rarely its first victims.

    I imagine some rather more indirect regulatory mechanism, which would curtail the speech of commercial organisations rather than that of individuals...

    (And "people of influence" is a ridiculously imprecise concept to enshrine in law...)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    edited February 21
    geoffw said:

    "Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way. "
    And another way is that many saw their vote as a cost-free protest because the Tories were so far ahead in the polls that a Corbyn victory was just not on the cards.

    If that was true, then why have those people stuck with Corbyn in the polls since?

    While polls can be taken with a pinch of salt, the May local elections are looking to confirm the national picture.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
    Seems to be a lot of unhappiness with her never-ending "transition" position?
    Spokesman has said tonight the transistion will be no more than 2 years

    Fact is TM is the only way Brexit will happen. Topple her and Brexit falls as the HOC will kill it
    The Rees Mogg faction can't force their version of Brexit through parliament but they can bring down May and trigger a leadership election that could result in a hard Brexiteer as PM
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 718
    edited February 21
    John_M said:

    The Tories have added £1.3 trillion to the national debt, and are proposing to run a deficit until the early 20s, so toss another couple of hundred billion extra on top of that. That's while still borrowing the thick end of a billion quid a week, all of which is going to service the interest on the national debt. All this towards the end of the natural business cycle.

    Shock horror, debt goes up after the biggest crash since the great depression.

    Yes, they could have cut more in 2010. For example: abolish the entire health service. Or the entire armed forces as well as all education spending.

    Even with these extremes, both options would still leave us borrowing 45bn a year.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 666

    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway the debate I went to this evening was "The Left has right on its side". Proposers: Stella Creasy and George Monbiot. Opposers: Roger Scruton and Kwasi Kwarteng

    Before the speeches we were asked to vote and 37% were against the motion, 31% undecided and 32% for.

    After, it was 57% against, 6% undecided and 37% for.

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    Stella Creasy is a star. She always comes over as sincere and empathetic.

    And under threat from momentum in Corbyn's comrade world
    Her seat borders Haringey - and momentum are moving onto Waltham Forest now. There is a lot of local concern about the council's planned redevelopment of Walthamstow town centre. The other local Labour MP John Cryer is a leave supporter - I wonder if he will face a challenge too?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.

    I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    Stella Creasy is a star. She always comes over as sincere and empathetic.

    She does. I like her. My criticism of her would be that she is a bit too quick to assume that only her way is the right way. So she made the very valid point that we can achieve more when we work together, a point with which everyone agreed. But she seemed to think that this could only mean that the state needed to do everything rather than realising - or looking around at the world - and seeing that collective action can be in many forms. The state is not the only permissible form of collective action.

    She criticised PFI deals but might have acknowledged that a very significant number of them were brought about by a Labour government. Crony capitalism and corporatism are not just failings of the right.

    There was a tendency with her and Monbiot to say that all the bad things which people brought up about the Left were not "really" the Left at all or not "their" Left. Understandable on a human level, maybe. But an intellectual sleight of hand, I'm afraid, nonetheless. And, bluntly, intellectually dishonest, though I don't doubt their honesty in condemning what they didn't like.

    The weakness on the right was that they were not particularly specific about how they thought capitalism or conservatism could help people better than socialism. Nor did they really accept that one needs a strong left to keep capitalism honest, that many of the improvements which capitalism has brought about only happened because the left were there making the case for the poor and the dispossessed.

    Oh - and Monbiot did not know that women were given the vote under a Tory government and that Mrs Pankhurst stood as a Tory MP. Tsk.....
  • FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
    Seems to be a lot of unhappiness with her never-ending "transition" position?
    Spokesman has said tonight the transistion will be no more than 2 years

    Fact is TM is the only way Brexit will happen. Topple her and Brexit falls as the HOC will kill it
    The Rees Mogg faction can't force their version of Brexit through parliament but they can bring down May and trigger a leadership election that could result in a hard Brexiteer as PM
    And they would not get past the maths -
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.

    And you class that as a good thing?

    As I've said passim, Tom Watson is firmly embedded within the Leveson mess, and he's not been too shy in propagating the nastiest smears about Conservative politicians. Hes exactly the sort of person we don't want influencing the shape of our future media.
    It's an observation.

    My personal view is leveson2 is necessary. That's not the same as thinking it's a good thing - I'm quite sad that it's necessary, actually.

    I'm also not sure it'll achieve very much in the world of social media/twitter.

    But yeah, I think it's now almost inevitable.

    Personally, I'd push for a compulsory, legally underpinned code of conduct for all "people with influence" to punish those who engage in fact-free witchhunts and extreme distortions. Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate and lie.
    Er.... yes it is. Freedom of speech is the freedom to think and say what you like, however loathsome it may be, provided you do not incite violence.

    And if lying were to be made punishable Corbyn would be among the first to be punished since, however polite he is, he has on numerous occasions said things which are demonstrably wrong about himself and what he has said and done and not said and done.

    The way to answer that is through debate not by trying to criminalise something you disagree with. Or dislike, however strongly you might dislike it.
    While I agree with the thrust of you remarks, I am not so sure about your 'Corbyn among the first to be punished' assertion.
    Not because Corbyn is a paragon of truth telling (far from it) - but because those who actually bring in a system of censorship are rarely its first victims.

    I imagine some rather more indirect regulatory mechanism, which would curtail the speech of commercial organisations rather than that of individuals...

    (And "people of influence" is a ridiculously imprecise concept to enshrine in law...)
    Maybe I should have said "should" rather than "would".

    Any decent interviewer trained to do some forensic questioning would demolish Corbyn easily and could do so quite politely. A shame we don't have such interviewers on TV.

    Marr is fit only to ask a grocer how much the apples cost.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    Andrew said:

    John_M said:

    The Tories have added £1.3 trillion to the national debt, and are proposing to run a deficit until the early 20s, so toss another couple of hundred billion extra on top of that. That's while still borrowing the thick end of a billion quid a week, all of which is going to service the interest on the national debt. All this towards the end of the natural business cycle.

    Shock horror, debt goes up after the biggest crash since the great depression.

    Yes, they could have cut more in 2010. For example: abolish the entire health service. Or the entire armed forces as well as all education spending.

    Even with these extremes, both options would still leave us borrowing 45bn a year.
    They could have raised taxes. They could have not ring fenced budgets, which always drives sub-optimal behaviours.

    However, my aim isn't really to rubbish the Tories. Osborne was a surprisingly effective and re-distributive chancellor, albeit prone to Brownian tactical wheezes. However, the Tories are incredibly complacent about Corbyn's economic illiteracy. Their economic record is not as good as they think.
  • Time to say good night to everyone. May you all rest easy and wake refreshed
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.

    And you class that as a good thing?

    As I've said passim, Tom Watson is firmly embedded within the Leveson mess, and he's not been too shy in propagating the nastiest smears about Conservative politicians. Hes exactly the sort of person we don't want influencing the shape of our future media.
    It's an observation.

    My personal view is leveson2 is necessary. That's not the same as thinking it's a good thing - I'm quite sad that it's necessary, actually.

    I'm also not sure it'll achieve very much in the world of social media/twitter.

    But yeah, I think it's now almost inevitable.

    Personally, I'd push for a compulsory, legally underpinned code of conduct for all "people with influence" to punish those who engage in fact-free witchhunts and extreme distortions. Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate and lie.
    Er.... yes it is. Freedom of speech is the freedom to think and say what you like, however loathsome it may be, provided you do not incite violence.

    And if lying were to be made punishable Corbyn would be among the first to be punished since, however polite he is, he has on numerous occasions said things which are demonstrably wrong about himself and what he has said and done and not said and done.

    The way to answer that is through debate not by trying to criminalise something you disagree with. Or dislike, however strongly you might dislike it.
    While I agree with the thrust of you remarks, I am not so sure about your 'Corbyn among the first to be punished' assertion.
    Not because Corbyn is a paragon of truth telling (far from it) - but because those who actually bring in a system of censorship are rarely its first victims.

    I imagine some rather more indirect regulatory mechanism, which would curtail the speech of commercial organisations rather than that of individuals...

    (And "people of influence" is a ridiculously imprecise concept to enshrine in law...)
    Leveson is unenforceable anyway. Any newspaper - its website operation, anyway - will simply base itself in the US where they take free speech seriously.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.

    It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.

    Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
    It didn't work for Major because Labour was run by Mr Blair who didn't seem like a threat to people's finances or aspirations.

    Whether the voters will take the same view in relation to a Corbyn-led Labour is what is unclear. It depends on (a) his manifesto; (b) how far they believe him; and (c) their view of the Tories.

    Conventional thinking now has it that the voters looked at Corbyn and were not scared by what they saw; indeed they saw much that was attractive. And that may be what happens next time.

    Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way.
    Sure, we are in the phoney war phase between elections, so who knows?

    Many voters vote on non economic factors, but even those that do, do not seem to find Corbynism any more threatening than the Tory Brexiteers. Why should we listen to their scare predictions for Corbynism while also accepting them rubbishing the Brexit economic forecasts?

    The truth is that the Tories are trashing their 2 strongest suits: economic credibility and administrative competence.


    Agreed. The Tories are being utter morons.
  • Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.

    Pong said:

    It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.


    Er...why?

    I think you will find there is more to come out on all this....
  • TonyTony Posts: 122
    edited February 21

    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Is the game up for Theresa?

    Why
    Seems to be a lot of unhappiness with her never-ending "transition" position?
    Spokesman has said tonight the transistion will be no more than 2 years

    Fact is TM is the only way Brexit will happen. Topple her and Brexit falls as the HOC will kill it
    The Rees Mogg faction can't force their version of Brexit through parliament but they can bring down May and trigger a leadership election that could result in a hard Brexiteer as PM
    And they would not get past the maths -
    Hard Brexit is the default without a deal in March 2019, so the maths would no longer matter. Remainer Tories wouldn't vote no confidence apart from Anna and Ken :)
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 718
    John_M said:


    They could have raised taxes. .

    They did - VAT to 20%, the bank levy, etc.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A

    The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.

    I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......

    Stella Creasy is a star. She always comes over as sincere and empathetic.

    She does. I like her. My criticism of her would be that she is a bit too quick to assume that only her way is the right way. So she made the very valid point that we can achieve more when we work together, a point with which everyone agreed. But she seemed to think that this could only mean that the state needed to do everything rather than realising - or looking around at the world - and seeing that collective action can be in many forms. The state is not the only permissible form of collective action.

    She criticised PFI deals but might have acknowledged that a very significant number of them were brought about by a Labour government. Crony capitalism and corporatism are not just failings of the right.

    There was a tendency with her and Monbiot to say that all the bad things which people brought up about the Left were not "really" the Left at all or not "their" Left. Understandable on a human level, maybe. But an intellectual sleight of hand, I'm afraid, nonetheless. And, bluntly, intellectually dishonest, though I don't doubt their honesty in condemning what they didn't like.

    The weakness on the right was that they were not particularly specific about how they thought capitalism or conservatism could help people better than socialism. Nor did they really accept that one needs a strong left to keep capitalism honest, that many of the improvements which capitalism has brought about only happened because the left were there making the case for the poor and the dispossessed.

    Oh - and Monbiot did not know that women were given the vote under a Tory government and that Mrs Pankhurst stood as a Tory MP. Tsk.....
    I agree, but:

    The Representation of the People act given Royal Assent on Feb 6 1918 was under PM Lloyd George's Wartime Coalition government. This included Cabinet level representation of Liberals, Tories and Labour. It was not a Tory government.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.

    It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.

    Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
    It didn't work for Major because Labour was run by Mr Blair who didn't seem like a threat to people's finances or aspirations.

    Whether the voters will take the same view in relation to a Corbyn-led Labour is what is unclear. It depends on (a) his manifesto; (b) how far they believe him; and (c) their view of the Tories.

    Conventional thinking now has it that the voters looked at Corbyn and were not scared by what they saw; indeed they saw much that was attractive. And that may be what happens next time.

    Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way.
    Sure, we are in the phoney war phase between elections, so who knows?

    Many voters vote on non economic factors, but even those that do, do not seem to find Corbynism any more threatening than the Tory Brexiteers. Why should we listen to their scare predictions for Corbynism while also accepting them rubbishing the Brexit economic forecasts?

    The truth is that the Tories are trashing their 2 strongest suits: economic credibility and administrative competence.

    The Tories are implementing the Leave vote 17 million voted for, a vote even Corbyn has promised to respect too
This discussion has been closed.