celabrate good times come on ,lets have a celebration .

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo.

I'd love to believe you mate. Honestly I would. But Corbyn has, I'd say, about a 10% chance of winning in 2020. He will win if and only if there is a very serious recession between now and then (to tip the economic argument his way - and he IS right about the economics) and he doesn't make any more idiotic decisions like the McDonnell one.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps
1) You are right that the tax credits are being restricted rather than totally eliminated. Bad choice of phrase from me. The effect of this and other planned reversals of Labour's working benefits is that (according to the IFS) 3 million relatively poorly paid families will be £1000 per year worse off.

Now. Labour did make a spectacular mistake in not voting against other welfare cuts a few weeks ago. That was a shocking decision, but it's the sort of f**k up that parties do make when they are punch drunk after losing an Election as badly as Labour did in May. Put that one aside and the fact is that it was Labour who brought in the tax credits precisely to improve the lot of some if the poorest people in society. And it is this lot who are drastically reducing them. I think that is a big difference between the two sides. I think it is intellectually idle to ignore facts like that and simy say "oh there's no difference between them."

[Copps is Magic]

When people say things like 'they're all the same' I don't think that necessarily means people (including myself) have flippant (and misguided) opinions about politics but maybe that their views of what constitutes meaningful change in society is a lot wider than what passes for political debate and the details of individual policies.

A lot of people say these things. Either we're all deluded or there is a point in there somewhere. In slightly related news I see a lot of people have also joined the labour party recently - 28,000 more members since Corbyn became leader.

[BobG]

Cracking discussion chaps. Thanks.

Filo: unless there is an almighty massive screw up on the economy by the Conservatives it is almost impossible for Corbyn, if he continues to stay in his current place on the political spectrum, to ever be elected. Certainly not in the next 10 years.

Picture a line - a straight line between A and B. Ok? That's the breadth of the political spectrum in this country. On the extreme left there are the Socialist Workers and so on. A bit closer to the centre are the Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn types. Closer to the centre again are the less lefty Labour party types. Pretty well on the centre are the Blairites. Going over to the right there is the same picture but in reverse. The Francis Pyms and Ted Heath's are close to the centre, Maggie is out to the right, Keith Joseph is a bit further out, and the lunatics of UKIP are out on the fringe.

Now, if you want to win an election, you have to attract a winning number of the people who sit somewhere along that line. Lets call it an electorate. So where on that line do you decide to place your politics and your policies?

Think about it Filo.  where do you position yourself to maximise your chance of attracting enough of the electorate to allow you to win? Parties out towards the wings almost never win elections. Maggie Thatcher is the only one who has done so in the last 60 years. And she only managed it for two unusual and rare reasons: the Labour Party had imploded under an intelligent, extremely well meaning lefty scruff who the press had a field day pillorying and who positioned the party well out towards the unelectable left wing, and, she had a nice little war. She couldn't lose. And neither she not her successor did lose until the Labour Party found a leader who succeeded in taking them back to the centre. No matter what you think of him as a man, or the politics he espoused, the guy was a genius. Without John Smith, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair the Labour Party would have continued to be unelectable right up to today.

Unless you are a died in the wool idealist, whether you like Corbyn's politics or not is utterly irrelevant. What any sane person with left of centre opnions in this country should always want is somebody, anybody, capable of beating the Tories. By definition, Corbyn is not that man and he never will be. 

As Billy says, the indulgent ponces who can't see beyond a principle have now exposed their own supporters to 10 years of right wing exploitation and repression.

And like I said, the Labour Party owes each and every one of us an abject apology.

some people might claim that the current government is extreme. I'd agree with that. But they are downright expert at dressing it up as the voice of moderation. They will get found out one day. But not for a long time, and, Corbyn will have to go first that's for sure. The Labour Party, once again, is being led by an intelligent lefty scruff who the press will crucify and who has already chopped away half of his potential electorate. It's the politics of the mad house.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps.

I gave you three top of the head things that I think showed a very big gulf between Labour and the Tories over the past few years.

If you think those are not significant, tell me what scale of difference you would like to see. And tell me how you are going to go about convincing enough people that they should also support those ideas.

Because politics is about the art of the possible. As I say, you can have all the very best ideas and beliefs and intentions, but if you can't get into power, those are all not worth a bucket of warm piss.

And this is not a hypothetical debate. The outcomes here have huge effects on the most vulnerable in society. I've no idea if you are old enough to rember how South Yorkshire was devastated between 1980-1995. If you aren't, I suggest that you look into it. Because the people who were entirely to blame for that were the ones who made Labour unelectable in the 1980s whilst convincing themselves that they were right and true to the cause, and that those would would bend and concede a little were craven class traitors. I lived through that Labour disaster. I don't want my kids growing up in a similar society.

[Sprotyrover]

Now if I were Corbyn I'd pinch an idea off Tories and make it central to my campaign,The Northern Power house.Steal a march on em,in my opinion The American New deal of the Great Recession , building your way out of trouble is a safe strategy,the Tories have clearly shoved it into the foot locker, Seize the Day!
Take it over, win back the northern  heartland of Labours tradional strongholds.
  win back Scotland.

I really do think the mentality is"stuff them Northern Monkeys they'll vote for us anyway."

And he really needs to start rattling some Sabres, Most Labour voters I know are slightly. To the left of Ghengis Khan when it comes to turning the other cheek!

Ask Ed no Balls opinion on that attitude.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Good call Sproty.

The issue I'm bang on board with Corbyn over is the idea of the BoE printing money to fund infrastructure investment. It's a no brainer.

The potential downside of printing money is that it tends to raise inflation. But as inflation is currently at 0% and is supposed to be at 2% (and there are strong arguments that it would help for it to be a bit higher than that) that is not a serious argument against it.

So yeah. Print away and spend it on the North's infrastructure.

PS. I find it fascinating to see the opposition to printing money from what Krugman calls Very Serious People. These are people who believe that the only way out of a major economic problem is hardship and suffering. They simply cannot compute a policy like People's QE, because it sounds too easy. It IS easy, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

[Filo]

As a Trade Unionist and former union representative, Corbyn represents most of my views, the scrapping of Trident is a bit daft though. Unelectable or not he closely represents my views and he'll get my vote

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's one down then Filo. He just needs another 10,999,999 and he'll get into Downing Street.

My guess is that he'd get 7-8,000,000 tops.

[tommy toes]

Trident eh? Have a look into it and then decide if it's worth the zillions we've invested.

[The Red Baron]

Excellent piece by Krugman as usual.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/opinion/paul-krugman-labours-dead-center.html?referrer=

As he says, Corbyn has won because of the intellectual collapse of the Labour moderates who offered nothing whatsoever.

I'd go further. What has collapsed in the Labour Party is not the moderates, as in Blairites. They are still physically there, even though they intellectually bankrupt of ideas. What has actually collapsed is the old moderate-left. The place that used to be occupied by the likes of Healy, Hattersley, John Smith, Jim Callaghan and Tony Crosland over the previous couple of generations. They have vanished. Totally. Labour's MPS now comprise 85% New Labour and 15% Bennite left. There is nothing in the huge chasm in the middle, which is EXACTLY where Labour should have been positioning themselves this time. Different from the Tories but electorally credible.

Instead we've had the choice of three candidates way to the right of Ted Heath and Harold Macmillian on economics, and one who is the heir to Tony Benn.

Enough to make you weep.

I'm not sure I agree with you about the composition of the PLP, Billy. Look at someone like Tom Watson, who could hardly be called a Blairite, but also is nowhere near the Corbyn/ McDonnell wing of the party. In fact, I would argue that the last two leaders of the party, Brown and Ed Miliband come from that "moderate Left" position.

Maybe their problem is that they are struggling to articulate a different position from the Blairites, but I don't think they have gone away.

There is also an issue with the Trades Unions that might not be helping the moderates. In the past, affiliated unions covered a broad range of views, from those traditionally on the left, like the NUM, to those who were more right wing in Labour terms, like the Engineers and Electricians. The TUC is now dominated by public sector unions with left-wing leaders who are broadly sympathetic to Corbyn and seem to have little time for moderates. Tom Watson didn't even get nominated by his own union, Unite. The unions are helping to pull the party in the same leftwards direction as the activists - who have always been generally left-leaning. In the past, those unions would have provided a counter-weight, but not any longer.

[i_ateallthepies]

Yes, let's do away with the one thing that for the last 50+ years has kept nut jobs like Putin and the communist regimes before him from driving their tanks right through Europe and Britain.  Yes, do look into it but make sure you give it a bloody good looking at...   Sounds like the same 'worth a punt' mentality that sees those amongst the Rovers' following all for gambling the very survival of the club on an unbelievably risky one-shot punt that we might, just might get to 'the promised land'.

[wilts rover]

pies - to save me the trouble would you mind listing all the countries between the UK & Russia who have nuclear weapons - and those who dont. Why dont you start with the great big one in the middle, Germany.

The US & Russia have enough nuclear weapons between them to destroy the world, or make it uninhabitable for humans several times over, and you think four nuclear submarines are going to save us!

[tommy toes]

Precisely.
That's  why I asked people to look into Trident. But they can't be arsed. Rather believe the nonsense we're fed by governments and the jingoistic Tory press.

[tommy toes]

Ooh look at us we're a World Superpower.
We've got a nuclear detterant!
Never mind it's cost billions and in the great scheme of things is about as useful as a fart in a colander.
And according to some who've been involved with it is outdated,  unstable and more likely to blow us up than anyone else.

[i_ateallthepies]

Wrong on so many of your assumptions.  I don't read Tory press, I don't trust a word they or their Tory pals utter but can form an opinion of my own.  World superpower? Think I believe that or even if it were true that it would give me a hard on?

Go right ahead, believe what you want but don't pretend that you know best when clearly you do not.

[tommy toes]

Wasn't aiming my last post at you pies.
It was commenting on governments, Blair's included, that want us to believe that because we've got Trident it's made the World safer, when that's a load of cobblers.
Just think what could have been done with money thrown at it and which Corbyn wants to spend wisely.

[Sammy Chung was King]

The Sun's coverage of Corbyn and before has been nothing short of scandalous, i know it's known as a tory paper, but is it too much too ask for neutrality?, the BBC are just as bad!.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Yes, let's do away with the one thing that for the last 50+ years has kept nut jobs like Putin and the communist regimes before him from driving their tanks right through Europe and Britain.

You might like to crosscheck your opinion that nuclear weapons kept the commies out of Europe with the Poles, Slovaks, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians and Czechs first. Especially remember to mention the years 1956 and 1968 to the last two and explain how nuclear weapons helped them then.

Edit: I forgot the East Germans. Don't forget to mention 1953 to them too.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The Sun's coverage of Corbyn and before has been nothing short of scandalous, i know it's known as a tory paper, but is it too much too ask for neutrality?, the BBC are just as bad!.

It's not a 'Tory' paper in the sense you mean it. The Sun (and its stablemates) will cosy up to any politician who is willing to let Murdoch get his way and rubbish anyone who isn't. That's why it backed Labour under Blair and switched back again afterwards.

[i_ateallthepies]

Never said it kept them out of those countries Glyn but it's kept them out of those countries with the deterrent.

In the last couple of years they've shown their colours again, just as they did in the examples you give.  Why? because they knew damned well that they could and Nato would just have to sit and watch.  And if we didn't have the ultimate deterrent, they'd be a damned sight more adventurous still.

I really can't believe that given Putin's record anyone would think it worth the gamble and trust him.  Un f**king believable!

[wilts rover]

Absolute rubbish. A national nuclear deterrant has not kept the Russians out of Germany, Holland, Belgium or Finland for example - because they dont have any. Sweden were so worried about the threat from Russia - and they are a sight lot closer than we are - that they scrapped theirs in 1972.

As I wrote in my earlier post, which you kindly ignored, the US and Russia each have 10x more nuclear warheads than any one else, whatever we have is totally irrelevant.

[i_ateallthepies]

wilts, am I not permitted to ignore a post that I think not worthy of a response?

[albie]

On the subject of Trident, there is an interesting interview with Major General Patrick Cordingly here;
Major General Patrick Cordingley on Trident  – ‘We Don’t Need Nuclear Weapons’ - YouTube

Does the UK control it, and what is the military use going forward?
All that money spent is funds not available for other things, is it not?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Never said it kept them out of those countries Glyn but it's kept them out of those countries with the deterrent.

Yeah, it kept the Argentinians out of the Falklands, the Americans out of Grenada, and nobody dares to attack Israel because of their nuclear weapons...

[BobG]

Pies m ate. I'd stop digging if I were you. Your facts and assumptions are so wrong that it's becoming embarrassing. Wilts is spot on: your decision to 'ignore' his post above says all everyone will ever need to know about the credibility of your position on this. Pack it in mate. I enjoy your thoughts and you make me think too sometimes. But not this time.

Cheers

BobG