Where's Malcolm (err) Tucker...

[wilts rover]

Copps

You want to be taken seriously. You want to not be the target is easy slurs. But then everything you say on this subject DOES have the air of a zealot and a believer, deaf to any other arguments.

The biggest example in your recent post is your use of the TINA argument (back to the 80s again, eh?) There is ALWAYS an alternative. It is the stance of the zealot to argue TINA (and yes, I know that Wilts has said there's no debate to be had, but he's an old leftie having a mid-life crisis).

Consider. If, 18 months ago, someone had claimed that an obscure backbencher would be chosen as leader of the Labour Party and the membership would treble. You'd have been laughed out of court.

Anyone got a Porsche for sale....or a Pinarello?

I still believe that, more than ever. All the 'debate' is doing both on this forum and the wider world, is entrenching each side deeper in their views. And whatever the result the aftermath will still divide the Labour Party. If Corbyn wins there is no way either you or the PLP will ever fully support him. If he looses then his supporters will be looking to take it out on the PLP.

The divide will take years to heal and will need a strong and visionary leader to do it. My guess is either Sadiq Khan or Andy Burnham, depending on how each of them fair in their mayoralities.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

You'd be better advised using your eyes rather than your opinions. I've said clearly on this very thread that I will vote Labour in 2020.

If you're looking for the people who split the Left, you need to look closer to home.

But yes, I agree with your general point. Things are far too far gone for Labour to be able to come back quickly. The question is: what Labour Party will face the country in 2025?

Burnham  will never be leader. Not with the current membership. Sadiq Khan isn't a bad bet. But I suspect it's more likely to be Clive Lewis.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

For the non lefties amongst us it is quite amusing.  The whole campaign is a farce really...

[Glyn_Wigley]

For the non lefties amongst us it is quite amusing.  The whole campaign is a farce really...

Quite, and the fact that there's a leadership challenge happening at all is the crux of the reason Corbyn is a bad leader. A shambles like this would never have happened under someone who knows how to lead (and manage) a party properly.

Could you seriously imagine anything like this happen under Harold Wilson, despite people in his Cabinet absolutely detesting him (especially Roy Jenkins, who said in one of his books somewhere that the loathing was mutual)? And that at a time when the Labour Party was an even broader church than it is now, being a home for people even further left- and right-wing than it is now.

Yes, the current PLP was antipathetical to Corbyn from the start. However, he has had nearly a year to do something about bringing them round (as a good party leader should with ANY faction of the party he leads) - and he's done absolutely bugger all about it, by all accounts. If anything, he's pissed even more of them off in the time he's had by being difficult for MPs to even get to talk to or dismissive of them if they were lucky enough to get to do so. That is NOT being a good party leader.

Corbyn does have an important part to play in the Labour movement - but it's as the conscience of the party; their Jiminy Cricket if you like - NOT their leader.

[Sprotyrover]

You summed it up perfectly there Glynn.

[Copps is Magic]

Smith has said he's 'labour till he dies' and doesn't support a split so presumably we are to take him on his word on that. I think Clive Lewis talks a lot of sense, but the last interview I heard from him he is behind Corbyn (but is very pragmatic on the matter).

I think both sides don't want a split because they both believe they are the rightful heirs to the labour party. And they are right. What they need to reconcile is that it is a natural part of democracy for competing perspectives to be heard within the same arena. It's not something to fear. I enjoy the lively political debate that is going on, and would ultimately like to hear competing perspectives from people who have something to say other than 'anything but Corbyn' and 'we'll deal with it later'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps.

Personally, I'd like to hear what is really wanted by people who appear ready to die for Corbyn, but who, when asked what policies they want to see enacted, come up with nothing that was radical for the Balls/Miliband ticket.

From my perspective, I'll tell you what I want, in clear order:

1) A sane macro-economic policy. Sort this out (and it's easily sortable) and most of the other problems shrink in size. This is Problem No1. McDonnell understands what to do. But so did Balls, with better understanding of the detail. It appears that even Hammond now gets it. Maybe that argument (one I've been going at full tilt for 7 years) is finally won.

2) A reversal of the 40 year drift of wealth to the wealthiest. I want to see income disparities which (disgracefully) rose under Blair after rocketing under Thatcher/Major, reined back.

3) A foreign policy that, whilst not being adventurous, seriously addresses the threat to European stability that Putin poses. After the economic stupidity of the past decade, this is the biggest threat to our futures.

4) A massive expansion of social housing (as an obvious corollary to 1).

Everything else is secondary. These are the major, first order issues affecting the country. I want a Govt that can a) be elected and b) put those policies into action.

What do YOU want?

[idler]

The social housing issue should drive the building sector with so many unemployed tradesmen available.
The money on wages and materials would filter back into local economies and the money raised from taxation and benefit savings would fund more projects. I know that it's not that simple but surely we should have our best brains working on kick starting this sector. It could also spur apprenticeships to get more of our young working.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Apropos the housing problem...whenever you see houses being built these days, has anybody ever seen anyone building terraced housing any more? When the country is crying out for low-cost housing and with the space to do so at a premium, you'd think there'd be more of a push to throw up more terraces...

[idler]

It could also be a chance to build on brownfield sites and regenerate areas without altering the water table or creating drainage problems.
Every construction worker taken off benefits and put on wages is effectively cheap labour in one sense.

[drfc1951]

Where i live, we have had a small estate of low cost terrace houses built , and they have all been bought by private landlords for rental.First  time buyers had no chance to buy them.

[Bentley Bullet]

We've regressed 100 years by going back to the old rip off landlord system. It's tantamount to ticket touting, although that seems to cause a bigger outcry for some ridiculous reason.

[drfc1951]

Thats true,one landlord actually bought 6 of these houses.

[Copps is Magic]

The worst of it all is that 95% of housing benefits (roughly £25bn per year) go to helping people pay their rent. So we're paying for our own mistakes. We're probably 3 million houses in total short in this country. The private sector has consistently not built enough houses to meet demand.

The private rental sector is diverse - there is a place for renting but some elements such as letting agencies we can do away with immediately. Their practices are medieval, I've experienced it myself. Renters in this country pay a higher percentage of their income on rent than in any other European country.

We should be thoroughly fed up with the platitudes successive governments have made to 'building new houses' and the way in which we've denied a generation the fundamental right to own their own home.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Technically the house I bought last year on a new build estate is a terrace and there's still some houses for sale here too.  Plenty of social housing on the estate as well.

[Sprotyrover]

Bloody hell the press have got their knives into the Corbinystas latest story is Sam Tarry fiddling his address so he can stand as a councilor. In Barking when he actually lives in Brighton.
Three months in jail for him if it's true.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well THAT's upped the ante somewhat!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-calls-richard-branson-stripped-8719591

Apparently, if you question Corbyn, you are "undermining democracy".

Course, this couldn't possibly be McDonnell playing mood music to the starry-eyed Corbynistas to cement his and Corbyn's hold on the party, whilst not worrying too much how utterly f**king stupid this sounds to the rest of the country, could it?

New Politics eh? 

[albie]

Epic PR own goal from the bearded tax exile Branson, and it looks like he might have committed an offense by inappropriate use of CCTV footage;
Virgin Trains 'broke own rules by releasing Jeremy Corbyn CCTV' | UK Politics | News | The Independent

You would have thought his legal team would have intervened to stop him early, but when a bloke sees his cash cow under threat sense goes out the window.

[Sprotyrover]

Epic PR own goal from the bearded tax exile Branson, and it looks like he might have committed an offense by inappropriate use of CCTV footage;
Virgin Trains 'broke own rules by releasing Jeremy Corbyn CCTV' | UK Politics | News | The Independent

You would have thought his legal team would have intervened to stop him early, but when a bloke sees his cash cow under threat sense goes out the window.

So they MAY have broke their own rules! Well they haven't broken the Data Protection Act. It's a real non story!

[Sprotyrover]

Well THAT's upped the ante somewhat!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-calls-richard-branson-stripped-8719591

Apparently, if you question Corbyn, you are "undermining democracy".

Course, this couldn't possibly be McDonnell playing mood music to the starry-eyed Corbynistas to cement his and Corbyn's hold on the party, whilst not worrying too much how utterly f**king stupid this sounds to the rest of the country, could it?

New Politics eh? 

Was this article written on a used toilet roll by some leftie twit and then not even edited? chucking Sir Philip Green into the wash waters down the legitimate case against him and causes any reader with a reading age of over 13 to cringe.

[Sprotyrover]

The social housing issue should drive the building sector with so many unemployed tradesmen available.
The money on wages and materials would filter back into local economies and the money raised from taxation and benefit savings would fund more projects. I know that it's not that simple but surely we should have our best brains working on kick starting this sector. It could also spur apprenticeships to get more of our young working.

Oh yes there will be plenty  of 'filtering' I have no doubt about that. social housing contracts used to be real Goldmine.

[idler]

Unfortunately where public money is concerned there are always some that will spend or misuse it without a conscience.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Just to stir the tureen a little further, I notice that prospective defender of public rights, Mr Smith, when faced with the choice of believing a rail passenger (and a Labour Parry member at that) or the rail company in this dispute, he came down on the side of big business.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37173048

Wilts

I think that's called "evidence-based decision making."

You appear to be hinting that faith-based decision making would be preferable.

Well there you go. An edited company video that doesn't show the area where Corbyn is sitting proves that Virgin trains are not overcrowded. Sorted for their franchise renewal next year then.

You appear to have missed what I am actually hinting at is that Smith is too close to big business. By not asking for independent evidence, the witness mentioned in the Guardian, the train manager who found the seats for Corbyn, the people who moved for him, anyone else on the train, anyone who uses that service line, then it's 'faith-based' that their 'facts' tell the whole story.

But if you and Owen are happy with that, fair enough.

Are you still believing the Guardian version of event Wilts? Despite the real facts behind who wrote it being outed?

[wilts rover]

Are you still believing the Guardian version of event Wilts? Despite the real facts behind who wrote it being outed?

Thanks for the info Glyn. If you could be helpful and point out where they are wrong and what the 'real facts' are that would be useful. This is the latest version I could find:

Amid a deluge of social media speculation about who was telling the truth, it eventually emerged that both sides actually agreed about much of the convoluted narrative.

On Wednesday, Corbyn confirmed there had been some available seats, but not two together, and that he was hoping to sit next to his wife.

As a series of passengers came forward to confirm they, too, had not been able to find seats at the start of the trip, Virgin trains agreed the service had been busy, and that they had been making a very specific point about some seats being free.

One of the problems appeared to be passengers not sitting in seats that had been reserved by other people who did not get on the train. About 45 minutes into the three-hour trip, train staff moved people into free seats to clear some of the blockages.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/25/traingate-latest-jeremy-corbyn-gets-seat-on-glasgow-virgin-service

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

There's really only one germane point there.

"On Wednesday, Corbyn confirmed there had been some available seats, but not two together, and that he was hoping to sit next to his wife."

Which raises the question: what the f**k was he thinking being videoed saying "the train is ram packed," and starting the whole shit storm?

Oh, hang on. I've got it!

It's got f**k all to do with presenting yourself as a sensible, electable politician to the country as a whole. It's all about impressing the passionate newcomers to the Labour Party, in order to make damn sure he gets re-elected, the new membership re-writes the rules of how the party works and we all march off to the inevitable socialist paradise.

It suddenly all makes sense.

Mind, I had to chuckle at Corbyn's comments at the Edinburgh Festival last week. He was being interviewed about his love of classical music (which is fine - no class issues there). But then it seemed to dawn on him that it probably wouldn't play well with the Momentum mob. It was toe-curling stuff.

He'd just said that he liked "pretty heavy classical music," then followed up with, “I do enjoy Mahler, but I recognise that there is lots of other music — brass band music."

Right on Jezza. Cos, like, all the oppressed proletariat Oop North are extras from Brassed Off.

f**k me...

[Glyn_Wigley]

Are you still believing the Guardian version of event Wilts? Despite the real facts behind who wrote it being outed?

Thanks for the info Glyn. If you could be helpful and point out where they are wrong and what the 'real facts' are that would be useful. This is the latest version I could find:

Amid a deluge of social media speculation about who was telling the truth, it eventually emerged that both sides actually agreed about much of the convoluted narrative.

On Wednesday, Corbyn confirmed there had been some available seats, but not two together, and that he was hoping to sit next to his wife.

As a series of passengers came forward to confirm they, too, had not been able to find seats at the start of the trip, Virgin trains agreed the service had been busy, and that they had been making a very specific point about some seats being free.

One of the problems appeared to be passengers not sitting in seats that had been reserved by other people who did not get on the train. About 45 minutes into the three-hour trip, train staff moved people into free seats to clear some of the blockages.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/25/traingate-latest-jeremy-corbyn-gets-seat-on-glasgow-virgin-service

Well, the first real fact that I've been made aware of is that the original article was written by someone using an alias. Someone that was a former SWP member who joined the Labour Party last year to vote for Corbyn, and was on the train helping make a documentary about Corbyn.

The byline on the original article was 'Charles B Anthony' - a name that has apparently never written for the Guardian before. But that's just an alias of Anthony Casey- a man who proclaims Jeremy Corbyn as 'his saviour' and made a campaign video for Corbyn's original leadership bid last year. He also reveres George Galloway, with whom he hosted an event at Shoreditch House this year.

Makes you wonder why he used an alias, doesn't it..? Is this the 'New Politics' too?

[BillyStubbsTears]

And "Charles B Anthony" had a tweet out yesterday.

"#Traingate made Jeremy Corbyn more popular with supporters, new poll finds." (My emphasis)

Job done then Chas, eh? You little entryist tinker.

[Glyn_Wigley]

And "Charles B Anthony" had a tweet out yesterday.

"#Traingate made Jeremy Corbyn more popular with supporters, new poll finds." (My emphasis)

Job done then Chas, eh? You little entryist tinker.

So a poll shows he's more popular with the already converted? Wow.

[BobG]

It's shameful isn't it? They're playing with the future of a nation, of 60 million people. And given the sainted Jeremy's view of NATO's collective, they're even playing with the future of a continent if not three. I'm starting to have a sort of shamefaced secret hope that Labour ends up with about 80 MP's after the next election. And that is making me angry and sad and ashamed.

Bob

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've just read another blog article that's gone viral among the Corbynistas.

https://opendemocracy.net/uk/ian-k-ellard/only-way-to-purge-labour-s-morbid-symptoms-vote-for-jeremy-corbyn

Yet another piece from a young Labour activist which starts from the premise that the past Labour Govt were effectively Tories.

THIS is what happens when you spend your life talking to people who agree with you and back-slapping each other for saying such words of wisdom. Analysis goes out the window. Certain "facts" are taken as unchallengeable axioms. And you build your entire world view from there.

So you ignore the fact that Labour's approach to the Great Recession blunted the worst effects and saved maybe 1.5m jobs. You ignore the fact that the difference between Labour's spending plans from 2010-2020 and those of the Govt that we got would have been north of £200bn, and that this would have had a huge effect on the speed of our recovery. You ignore the fact that we could have had an entirely different outcome if a quarter of a million people on the Left had voted differently in 2010.

You ignore all that, because a) it doesn't fit with your world view, b) no-one you talk to mentions it and c) the story that you tell instead gets you plaudits by the thousand.

As Wilts says, there's no debate to be had. And that is why this party is destroying itself as an electable force.