Not happy with the decision?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

Once we get onto the minutiae of grammar as a response, rather than the bleeding obvious substantive points, it's really rather pointless. I'm sorry if I slightly misrepresented you. I was making a pasta sauce at the time and my one hand internetting isn't what it could be.

Would it be fair to say that, when asked which policies you wanted from the Labour Party, the only two you mentioned were ones that were core policies at the last election?

And that you've said that you really admire Corbyn's consistency, and also his ability to be inconsistent when suitable?

See, I'm not doing this to make a point (I have no active role in politics by the way, so bad call there - that's one of many in this thread). I'm doing it because I'm genuinely interested in the commitment that so many people have found for Corbyn. It genuinely bemuses me. And I've yet to see anything properly substantial to back it up.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts. I KNOW that Corbyn has no intention of pulling us out of NATO. Because he's said himself that there's no public appetite for that. Very pointedly, he DIDN'T say that it was because he believed in the core aims and policies of NATO.

Which, as I'm sure you fully appreciate, is the reason for my earlier comments.

As for Smith, the issue doesn't arise because his commitment to NATO isn't in doubt. He hasn't written several piss-poorly argued criticisms of NATO in the Morning Star.

[Copps is Magic]

Well I'm running off memory here so forgive me if I get some details wrong. When I refer to changes to benefits I am mostly referring to changes to disability benefits. Labour did broadly object to the changes in 2012 but the bedroom tax was used as a headline issue when it was just the tip of the iceberg. Their policy at the time paid some oblique attention to ‘reform’ and didn't make any hard and fast commitments about the budget. This was at a time when there was systematic evidence that the benefits changes were immediately affecting disabled people negatively and exacerbating inequality among an already disadvantaged group. At times like this, we don’t need some austerity apologising muddled up economic argument, we need a party who is unequivocally going to stand up for people’s rights in the face of the evidence, and I don’t think we got that.

Mental health ties into this because under most definitions it is a disability and is a major part of many other impairments. To me we’re in the dark ages of understanding it and treating it. Part of that is understanding the relationship between inequality and mental health, which we also don’t fully appreciate. The appointment of a minster for mental health, then, makes a lot of sense to me and give me the impression that Corbyn appreciates these issue in greater depth than Miliband did.

The housing policies could be broadly similar – on that subject I know less, but I know it’s scandalous that letting agents in the private rental sector are getting away with what they do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

With you 100% on mental health as an issue. It's been off everyone's agenda until recently, but there is a cross-party consensus beginning to emerge. It's not a left-vs-right thing. In fairness to them (and I rarely say that) the LDs have pushed this issue more than any other party over the past few years.

On housing, this was Miliband's approach 16 months back.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/communities/news/63145/ed-milibands-full-speech-labours-housing-policy

I've not heard anything more radical from Corbyn.

Regarding other spending promises though, you cannot claim that the two Eds were Austerians but Corbyn and McDonnell are not. The current Labour fiscal policy is (as far as I can see, because there's actually been nowt published beyond vague headline intentions) identical to the one that Labour stood on in 2015. Balance the books on current spending (including welfare). Allow continued borrowing for capital investment.

(By the way, that capital investment that Balls pushed is important. Very important. The difference between the Labour and Tory manifestos last year amounted to £25bn per year difference in borrowing and spending. The IFS said "Don't let it be said that there are no difference between the parties. There are big, meaty political decisions to be made."
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7525

Which is one reason I get so f**king angry hearing Labour Party members saying that those who aren't signed up to the Church of the Latter Day Jezza are RedTories. It is intellectually vacuous and betrays a failure to engage with basic facts.

Be consistent. Either the current policy is muddled Austerity-lite or last year's was sensible socialism.

[Sammy Chung was King]

Well I'm running off memory here so forgive me if I get some details wrong. When I refer to changes to benefits I am mostly referring to changes to disability benefits. Labour did broadly object to the changes in 2012 but the bedroom tax was used as a headline issue when it was just the tip of the iceberg. Their policy at the time paid some oblique attention to ‘reform’ and didn't make any hard and fast commitments about the budget. This was at a time when there was systematic evidence that the benefits changes were immediately affecting disabled people negatively and exacerbating inequality among an already disadvantaged group. At times like this, we don’t need some austerity apologising muddled up economic argument, we need a party who is unequivocally going to stand up for people’s rights in the face of the evidence, and I don’t think we got that.

Mental health ties into this because under most definitions it is a disability and is a major part of many other impairments. To me we’re in the dark ages of understanding it and treating it. Part of that is understanding the relationship between inequality and mental health, which we also don’t fully appreciate. The appointment of a minster for mental health, then, makes a lot of sense to me and give me the impression that Corbyn appreciates these issue in greater depth than Miliband did.

The housing policies could be broadly similar – on that subject I know less, but I know it’s scandalous that letting agents in the private rental sector are getting away with what they do.

Mental health is a very serious problem, for the people suffering, and their families. It's not something that you can switch on and off!.
 When you have these issues, friends, families drift apart, because even those closest to you don't understand it, and how to deal with it. How can they be expected to, if the person suffering with it, doesn't know how to recover from it?.
If a person has a broken leg, they are whipped straight down to the hospital, and others show some sympathy, have a laugh probably at how it happened if it was funny. With mental illness,friends or family feel awkward, they don't know the right or wrong thing to say, it's difficult for the sufferer and close friends/relatives.

With mental illness, it's piles of tablets, talking therapy, trying to reprogramme how you see things, when this doesn't work, then they don't really know how to help you from there onwards!.
One of the ways the government think to help, is forcing a seriously unwell person into working, taking everything they have, and just saying 'get on with it'!.
The human brain still remains, an organ that they are still trying to learn about, treatments haven't really moved on much in years.
 Labour appointing a mental health minister is a start. It is an illness that is deeply misunderstood, and still the people who have it are otrasized from everyday life.
People still fear those with these type of illnesses, and don't want to be around those who have these things going on, which is a real sadness in the world. Most are very normal, they lack in a vital chemical in the brain, and wouldn't think of harming anybody else!.

[albie]

Well it looks like someone in Labour has woken up and started to smell the coffee;
Corbyn ally suggests Labour could form pacts with parties across left | Politics | The Guardian

Much bleating to follow from the old guard I'm sure.

It would be good to hear from the SNP and Scottish Labour about this.
I expect the usual holding pattern of deny, then denigrate, and then agree will make an appearance.

[Sammy Chung was King]

Any parties first objective, should be to get in power, as the government of the country. Mp's can help their people who they represent, better from the inside, than being in opposition.
In the paper today, it gave me a sobering thought, Thatcher and Michael Foot, and May and Jeremy Corbyn, were on near enough the same percentages of potential support.
I admire anybody who has principles, and tries to be consistent in they're views. But Corbyn cannot lead a country, he doesn't have many of the things needed as far as i can see, i might be wrong, who knows?.

When you ask a leader if they would use a nuclear bomb, is it brave to say ''no i wouldn't'', or is it foolhardy?. As a leader you have to compromise your views for the greater good.
Nobody wants nuclear capabilities spread throughout the world, nobody wants to think of using them. Is he so principled that he couldn't just say 'Yes as the absolute last resort'?. Is it a strength to say no he wouldn't?.
It's a poor situation for the whole world, that anybody has these capabilities, the whole world seems to be in a real mess at the minute.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Well it looks like someone in Labour has woken up and started to smell the coffee;
Corbyn ally suggests Labour could form pacts with parties across left | Politics | The Guardian

Much bleating to follow from the old guard I'm sure.

It would be good to hear from the SNP and Scottish Labour about this.
I expect the usual holding pattern of deny, then denigrate, and then agree will make an appearance.

Especially the first sentence of the last paragraph.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Go on then Albie. Indulge me.

What do Labour have that they can offer the SNP in order to encourage them to join a big tent?

[albie]

That is for Labour to decide as a party, and for the SNP to set out their terms, Billy.
Labour in Scotland have fought on a unionist ticket, and may need to offer a different position next time.

I would like to see what all parties are prepared to put up for negotiation. No-one will know what shape an anti Tory alliance will take until everyone sees the need to explore the possibilities.

Just for starters, I suppose other areas of interest might be;
electoral reform
funding of political parties
internal democracy of political parties
cross jurisdiction protocols.

I suppose the SNP would look for concessions on further financial autonomy, and agreement to implement the result of the future referendum on independence. I can't see why the SNP would turn down the chance to co-operate unless the terms were ruinous.

There is surely no harm in exploratory talks. The next election is in 2020, barring the unusual. Plenty of water to flow under the bridge until then.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

If you're going to suggest that there a legs in a left alliance [1] then you need to have some idea about the basic political landscape that would underpin such an agreement.

The SNP have one key aim which is the break-up of the U.K.  Everything else is subservient to that.[2] Labour has both a principled and a self-serving interest in being opposed to that. So I genuinely don't see what common ground there can be between Labour and the SNP. And that's before you factor in the damage that would be done to Labour in England by such a deal.

As with my I've  heard from Lewis, this sounds like woolly-headed, "wouldn't it be great if"-erry, rather than properly thought out politics.

'Course, if I were to be REALLY cynical, I'd say it sounds like the sort of superficially attractive but intellectually vacuous stuff that I'd put out if I was trying to stiffs the sinews of a couple of hundred thousand idealistic left-leaning folk who really want politics to be different from what it is, but don't think too deeply beyond that.

[1] To be honest, I don't consider the SNP to have any particular left-leaning core philosophy. They want independence. Full stop. The left-wing stance is a convenience because they know they would've hammered by the electorate if they portrayed themselves any other way. But it's funny that you reserve your bile for Blair and the Labour right (which is seems to include everyone to the right of Dennis Skinner) whilst proposing a pact with Salmond's party, when Wee 'Eck has spent most of his political life to the Right of Frank Field.

[2] And when you accept that, you realise that the SNP would NEVER want a deal that gets Labour closer to power. There is NOTHING in it for them. Scotland is a left-wing country (or at least, thinks itself to be - detailed belief polls show little difference between the Scots and English, but the Scots self-identify as left-wing) and the LAST thing the Scots want is a left-wing UK Govt. Because that would reduce the pressure for independence.

That is why the SNP painted New Lab as Red Tories. It's depressing that so many Labour members rush in with the same idiotic insult without stopping to think about the bigger picture.

Now. I ASSUME Lewis knows all this. Because if he doesn't, I wonder what the f**k he spends his days thinking about. But if he does, then he's stringing you idealists along, the little tinker.

[albie]

Billy,

I don’t think the SNP is simply about “ one key aim which is the break-up of the U.K”. I suggest you consider the social policy obligations of the SNP in contrast to those of Westminster. They are clearly left of the current UK government.

The SNP are interested in self determination, and the form that might take will no doubt be fluid over time. I think the right to democratically self determine is essential to the historic role of Labour.

The Labour interest has changed over time. The UK is itself an alliance that dates from a particular set of historical circumstances, those conditions are now breaking down, and with that change comes the opportunity to renew the structure and relationships it contains.

You refer to “proposing a pact with Salmond's party”, as though this is the sum total of the suggestion when it is a part of it. Also part of the suggestion is discussion with the Greens and Lib Dems, who hold to much the same ground as New Labour.

The idea that Lewis is floating is not about whether sectoral interests wish to see (leftish) rivals hold power, it is about preventing a continuing Tory domination on a minority mandate.

I don’t know why you think anyone who explores the possibilities for change is an “idealist”. It is surely the only sane action to take if you think that the developing situation demands it.

Rather than see any initiative as “idealist”because it departs from the convention, would it not be better to think of it as an innovation that may secure a better future than the Captain Mainwaring approach.

As I have said before, I have been a Labour supporter for many years. I feel the need to change my position if new facts come to light, or the context changes, and I base my views on the evidence before me. I would call that pragmatic, not idealist.

Ps.
I don’t know what you mean by saying “you  reserve your bile for Blair and the Labour right”.
Are you confusing me with another poster?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

It's not a question of what YOU think the aims of the SNP are.

They are there in black and white in the first few lines of the SNP constitution.

http://104.46.54.198/sites/default/files/assets/documents/constitutionofthescottishnationalparty.pdf

This isn't a left-wing cuddle-fest. THAT is what the SNP's aims are. There is nothing whatsoever about a nice left-wing agreement (or anything else) for the UK as a whole.

[albie]

Billy,

The Labour Party once had clause 4 as a key component. It was never delivered and eventually replaced.

The issue is about policy symbiosis, and the ability to deliver social change via the available mechanisms. If new alliances can offer a broader electoral base for progressive politics, why would you not explore it?

[RedJ]

Billy,

I don’t think the SNP is simply about “ one key aim which is the break-up of the U.K”.

Oh, it is. It absolutely is.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

Here's a question.

During the last election campaign, when Sturgeon regularly popped up talking to the ENGLISH electorate and telling them that the SNP really, REALLY wanted to work with Labour, do you think her motive was:
a) to explore policy symbiosis in the spirit of left-wing sisterly love, for the benefit of the proletariat of the entire UK
or
b) to encourage Cameron to face-palm and say,  "what did we tell you?" to the English masses, already pissed off with the Barnett formula?

See me? I'm sure I'm a cynically old t**t, but if I was an SNP grandee, my ideal scenario would be a Tory UK Govt in perpetuity, and an equally permanent hobbling of the Labour Party. I stop to speak to the Labour Party other than to ask if they preferred the next kick in the left bollock or the right one.

Policy symbiosis? That only works if there's a vague common area in the policy Venn diagram.

[albie]

Billy,

Your responses are interesting for what they choose to ignore.

It really does not matter whether you or I agree with the aims of the SNP. What is important is what people in Scotland support, and how we revisit our position in response to that. The SNP might well be content with a Tory government, up to the point it frustrates their ambitions.

“Policy symbiosis? That only works if there's a vague common area in the policy Venn diagram”.

I take it you think that there is no common ground then. I think that there are considerable overlaps in terms of social policy, welfare provision, NHS support, industrial and employment policy and opposition to austerity economics. Further gains might be possible if you enter into discussion.

Unable to secure a UK Parliamentary majority, Labour is reduced to a diminishing role as the “best of he rest” minority opposition.

Scotland has gone to SNP control, never likely to return to the Labour Party. With no significant electoral base in the SW of England, and with support in the north divided from the urban electorate of southern England by differing expectations and priorities, how best to proceed?

Are you seriously suggesting that Labour have a viable alternative strategy that has not already failed? Miliband went for the headliners that were meant to interrupt the progress of UKIP…..remember the carved “headstone” of pledges. Leaving Scotland aside if it troubles you, what should Labour do in its English heartlands to maximise its returns at the ballot box?

What I do not understand is why you seem to believe that it is preferable to revert to a model that did not deliver last time around. Was it just a question of being misunderstood?

Unless you can provide an alternative narrative, what we have is a Labour Party that is like a rabbit in the headlights, frozen in position.

Over to you!

[Glyn_Wigley]

You don't get it, do you? The SNP donned the clothes of the left to smash labour in Scotland - which they did. Why on earth would they now want to cosy up to Labour now they've made Labour irrelevant in Scotland?? The SNP is the strongest it's ever been, the last thing they want to do is throw away what they've won!!

[albie]

I fully get the point about the power grab, Glyn.
As I wrote above, what happens when the SNP hit the wall of Tory refusal?

The raft of social policies implemented by the SNP hardly suggest a return to the more right wing position the party held in previous years.

Which illustrates my point....things change, and political opportunities arise from those changes that need to be examined. They may not lead anywhere useful, but then again, they may.

[The Red Baron]

Surely the key plank of any attempt to build a Grand Coalition of the Centre-Left would be electoral reform for Westminster? And I can see real problems getting the SNP to buy into that. They are huge beneficiaries of FPTP in Westminster elections. Probably more so than even the Conservative Party in England.

OK, one issue would be that the Scottish Parliament is elected via a form of PR, but like most politicians the leadership of the SNP is perfectly capable of holding different positions on the same fundamental issue. They got lots of practice during the Indy Ref!