Support NeoGAF

[anonymous_abc]

Blah blah blah polls blah blah blah, but





Huh

That would be glorious! Like a real opposition leader!

 

[TeddyBoy]

Why can't we just knock some of our foreign aid on the head? Do we still need to be paying millions to the likes of India?

(I'm openly uninformed about such matters).

I'm pretty sure we stopped giving foreign aid to India when they decided to make a space program rather than help their millions of people in poverty.

I'm not sure where that money goes now.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Heard on the radio this morning that Tony Blair is weighing in on the whole leadership thing to say that the party shouldn't "lurch to the left" or somesuch.

Edit:

I'm pretty sure we stopped giving foreign aid to India when they decided to make a space program rather than help their millions of people in poverty.

I'm not sure where that money goes now.

I think we're only stopping giving aid this year. Which is fair enough I think, since India gives way more than it receives from the UK to other countries in its own foreign aid budget!

 

[uncleniccius]

Heard on the radio this morning that Tony Blair is weighing in on the whole leadership thing to say that the party shouldn't "lurch to the left" or somesuch.

Edit:



I think we're only stopping giving aid this year. Which is fair enough I think, since India gives way more than it receives from the UK to other countries in its own foreign aid budget!

I don't like Blair but he's right. A left wing party won't win any time soon - if either party lurches away from center it will be an issue for their prospects IMO.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

The man said that a proportional voting system doesn't work because it gives small parties a disproportionate amount of power.

Just

...what?

That is complete garbage. It makes literally no sense.

 

[phisheep]

The man said that a proportional voting system doesn't work because it gives small parties a disproportionate amount of power.

Just

...what?

That is complete garbage. It makes literally no sense.

I guess the logic is that a smallish third-placed party can dictate the terms in a hung parliament, so getting basically all the power for about 15% of the votes.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Heard on the radio this morning that Tony Blair is weighing in on the whole leadership thing to say that the party shouldn't "lurch to the left" or somesuch.

All this talk of going "back" to the centre is utter rubbish, when Labour has undeniably been a Tory-lite party in recent years, with a few populist bones thrown in for good measure.

Labour should have a few bold policies that stand out (gradual re-nationalisation of railways is a no-brainer, both from a populist and pragmatic standpoint), and have the conviction to actually challenge the opposition on key policies that their support base knows are wrong. Their passive stance towards the budget makes them look weak and unviable as opposition, even if it's a misguided attempt to woo Conservative voters... who will just vote Conservative anyway.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I guess the logic is that a smallish third-placed party can dictate the terms in a hung parliament, so getting basically all the power for about 15% of the votes.

Yes because in countries with proportional representation the small parties dictate everything...

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I guess the logic is that a smallish third-placed party can dictate the terms in a hung parliament, so getting basically all the power for about 15% of the votes.

.

 

[War Peaceman]

That Tony Blair article in the telegraph is about as narcissistic and full of meandering nonsense as you'd expect. It is painful to read.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Jeremy Corbyn wants people with more money to pay more tax, and make tax avoidance/evasion more difficult. The man is literally Stalin.

 

[cabot]

The man said that a proportional voting system doesn't work because it gives small parties a disproportionate amount of power.

Just

...what?

That is complete garbage. It makes literally no sense.

Our friend Tony seems to follow that mentality that unless you've got a decent majority, nothing will get done and it's a waste of time. Compromise is for the weak, and should be ignored.

The problem is as we advance in the digital age where more and more people are growing up with a vast resource of knowledge at their fingertips, they can align themselves to parties outside the big two because instead of just blindly accepting the values passed on from previous generations, you have the ability to read up on big issues and decide for yourself which party has the best solutions.

FPTP is becoming more of a crippling problem with each election. I was hoping this one would be the time where they started offering electoral reform, but the result we had was literally the worst possible outcome to bring about change.

Painting it as 'Well it kept UKIP out, it's needed' is utterly depressing as a motive for keeping it. The bottom line is a significant amount of the population voted for UKIP (and the Greens, and the Lib Dems), why should they be swept under the rug because they didn't collate these votes in the right constituencies?

The current state of affairs is relying on the SNP and the House of Lords (an unelected house) and some good old backbenchers to stop Tories running through all sorts of crazy laws without acceptable compromise. It's not a good situation.

I don't know what will force electoral reform though!

 

[twobear]

Yes, everyone but the Tories is right. Silly Tories.

I mean it ultimately depends on what you want economic policy to do. The Tory party is a party that is built, basically, to generate and maintain power and control for the small number of wealthy elites that already have it. The empirical evidence suggests that the economic policies they've implemented since the 1980s tend to consolidate wealth (and hence power) in the hands of a very small number of people. You would have to be blinkered to believe that this is just a coincidence.


From http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/investment_growth_and_tax_justice;

Wealth creation is a good thing: we all want greater prosperity.

But let us have a serious debate about how wealth is created.

If you believe the Conservative myth then wealth creation is solely due to the dynamic risk-taking of private equity funds, entrepreneurs or billionaires bringing their investment to UK shores.

So if we follow the Conservative’s tale then it is logical to cut taxes for the rich and big business, not to bother to invest in the workforce, and be intensely relaxed about the running down of public services.

But in reality wealth creation is a collective process between workers, public investment and services, and, yes, often innovative and creative individuals.

How pathetic the state of political discourse in our country has become if this view is considered unelectable and crazily left wing, when it's actually pretty much correct.

 

[phisheep]

How pathetic the state of political discourse in our country has become if this view is considered unelectable and crazily left wing, when it's actually pretty much correct.

I mostly agree with you there.

With one exception. Corbyn makes no mention at all of business owners in his collective process.

 

[Uzzy]

So, not really a question of huge political importance, but I am wondering just who the last PM was with a beard?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So, not really a question of huge political importance, but I am wondering just who the last PM was with a beard?

The Marquess of Salisbury, 1902. Coincidentally also the last Prime Minister not to be from the Commons.

 

[twobear]

I mostly agree with you there.

With one exception. Corbyn makes no mention at all of business owners in his collective process.

'Innovative and creative individuals'? That's referring to the 'dynamic risk-taking of private equity funds, entrepreneurs or billionaires bringing their investment to UK shores', which seems to cover business owners.

 

[Volotaire]

A shame Laura Kassenberg is the new BBC political editor. I have found her Newsnight performances weak and more recently her commentary on BBC Election 2015.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also marks the fourth Conservative BBC political editor in a row, with an unbroken streak since 1992.

 

[Moosichu]

60 minutes in Australia has done a piece on the Westminster Paedophile scandal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDVbAD5QCrk

 

[tomtom94]

Private Eye this fortnight is very good, critiquing the Budget, calling out issues on both sides of the BBC debate, couple of good jokes about the Labour leadership run, and they stick the boot into Dacre, Desmond and Murdoch nicely.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Also marks the fourth Conservative BBC political editor in a row, with an unbroken streak since 1992.

One of the main reasons I'm not cut up about potentitally losing the BBC is almost mainly because the News was never insulated from the scare tactic journalism that evolved from the mid 2000's and fed into every single bullshit Tory or even UKIP terror-grab. Their coverage of the 2010 election was so biased it was honestly disgusting.

 

[phisheep]

'Innovative and creative individuals'? That's referring to the 'dynamic risk-taking of private equity funds, entrepreneurs or billionaires bringing their investment to UK shores', which seems to cover business owners.

If that it what it means, then it seems to me a peculiarly skewed vision of business owners and not one that I would readily apply to my landlord or my plumber or the restaurant next door or the 700 small businesses within a half-mile of my shop, or indeed to me.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Jeremy Corbyn wants people with more money to pay more tax, and make tax avoidance/evasion more difficult. The man is literally Stalin.

Well, people with more money do pay more tax, and I think most people want that, don't they? To my knowledge there's no major party advocating a non-progressive tax system. But it's obviously not as simple as "increase the tax rate".

As a total aside though - and I mean that; This example is from his press release there but it's absolutely present in all parties comms - why do they still include sentences like this:

"The publication of Jeremy Corbyn’s plans for the economy provide further evidence of the serious nature of the policy debate Jeremy is bringing to this leadership contest."

It's just so woefully transparant. When "your guys" are saying "my guy is great", it's just so obviously shite. Like when a journalist asks Arsene Wenger if he thinks he can still win the league when he's 9 points behind with 3 games to go and he's all "eeeerrr well, you know, ahhh, until it is impossible we uhhhhh shall keep trying." Fuck off Arsene. * And I just can't help but think it's a huge turn off to anyone that hasn't already picked a side. It's just words for the sake of it, but it's emblematic of the "colour" of the discourse atm.

* I may or may not be a Spurs fan.

 

[kmag]

A shame Laura Kassenberg is the new BBC political editor. I have found her Newsnight performances weak and more recently her commentary on BBC Election 2015.

That and the fact the BBC will need to keep the nearby guy with the mop employed for any time she interviews a senior Tory or a right wing think tank.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

To my knowledge there's no major party advocating a non-progressive tax system.

Didn't UKIP want a flat tax rate? lulz

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Has Corbyn been asked about his Falklands/NI views recently? Curious to see how well those will go down if he becomes leader.

 

[Jackpot]

Labour is not being graceful about this.

Labour leadership contender Liz Kendall has dismissed calls for her to pull out of the contest and back another candidate to defeat Jeremy Corbyn.

It follows a YouGov poll for the Times putting left-winger Mr Corbyn ahead in the race and Ms Kendall fourth.

Senior Labour figures, including ex-PM Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson, have warned against a victory for Mr Corbyn.

Ex-deputy PM Lord Prescott criticised Tony Blair's intervention in the contest and urged people: "Calm down."

He told BBC Radio 4's Today Mr Blair's suggestion that those who backed Mr Corbyn in their hearts should get a transplant was "unacceptable".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33632605

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

They're salty as hell that a real left winger is going to lead the party for the first time in 20 years

Prescott as the voice of reason lol

 

[tomtom94]

Something is wrong when Prescott is the voice of reason.

Former deputy leader Lord Prescott told Today that Mr Blair had been wrong to "abuse" supporters of Mr Corbyn with his "transplant" comment.

He also said acting leader Harriet Harman had overstepped her authority in setting out Labour's support for some of the government's welfare cuts.

He said it would not be a disaster if Jeremy Corbyn won, but said he would not be voting for him, adding: "It's the party's decision not the MPs'."

 

[Nicktendo86]

I love that Prescott 'calling for calm' has the subtlety of a bull attempting to negotiate the confined isles of a china shop. I don't think there is anyone in labour he didn't throw under the bus in that interview, except himself of course.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Didn't UKIP want a flat tax rate? lulz

At this point it'd be quicker to list what hasn't been their policy at some point or other.

Also, it's easy for Prescott to say, he doesn't need to worry about getting elected.

 

[ruttyboy]

First off, I have to admit I don't follow politics closely, but what possible justification could people within the leadership of the Labour party (MPs and up) have for complaining that a candidate is popular with the actual membership of the party?

If it's because it doesn't line up with their personal views then doesn't that imply that they are in the wrong party rather than people are voting 'the wrong way'?

Isn't this basically the basis of the democratic system they are complaining about?

 

[tomtom94]

First off, I have to admit I don't follow politics closely, but what possible justification could people within the leadership of the Labour party (MPs and up) have for complaining that a candidate is popular with the actual membership of the party?

If it's because it doesn't line up with their personal views then doesn't that imply that they are in the wrong party rather than people are voting 'the wrong way'?

Isn't this basically the basis of the democratic system they are complaining about?

Think of it as similar to why the Republican party are worried about Donald Trump; he might play well with their base but the general election isn't won by the base, it's won by convincing people from the margins of the other party.

 

[Jezbollah]

First off, I have to admit I don't follow politics closely, but what possible justification could people within the leadership of the Labour party (MPs and up) have for complaining that a candidate is popular with the actual membership of the party?

If it's because it doesn't line up with their personal views then doesn't that imply that they are in the wrong party rather than people are voting 'the wrong way'?

Isn't this basically the basis of the democratic system they are complaining about?

It's not so much the popularity of the candidate from within the Labour party.

It's the popularity of their eventual Leader to be able to win votes from non-voters and voters of other parties in the next election.

As a non-Labour voter, the only two I am potentially interested in seeing become leader is Liz Kendall mainly, and to a lesser extent Andy Burnham. I don't see myself ever being in a position of voting for a party lead by the other two.

 

[anonymous_abc]

It's not so much the popularity of the candidate from within the Labour party.

It's the popularity of their eventual Leader to be able to win votes from non-voters and voters of other parties in the next election.

As a non-Labour voter, the only two I am potentially interested in seeing become leader is Liz Kendall mainly, and to a lesser extent Andy Burnham. I don't see myself ever being in a position of voting for a party lead by the other two.

On the other hand Corbyn is much more likely to get greens and other left wing non-voters to vote for Labour.
Fighting for the middle is a mirage...

 

[Jezbollah]

On the other hand Corbyn is much more likely to get greens and other left wing non-voters to vote for Labour.
Fighting for the middle is a mirage...

Absolutely. I meant to add this too. A shift in the political spectrum leans away from the centre and into Green territory. At the same time that same shift takes away the more centre Labour members/voters potentially into the hands of their opposition...

 

[ruttyboy]

But doesn't that mean that they are more worried about securing power for themselves than representing their own party members?

Surely a political party is an organisation designed to express the views of its members? If not enough people in the country support the policies and outlook of a party it doesn't get elected, isn't that the entire system?

What's the point of joining a party and then changing everything you/they stand for just to get into power? Logically the only way to stay true to your orignal intent is to bullshit to get into power and then double-cross all those who voted for you except your party faithful. Is that their plan?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

If Corbyn wins and Natalie Bennett is still Green leader at the next election Labour should scoop up pretty much all of their votes outside brighton (assuming left wing candidates).

But doesn't that mean that they are more worried about securing power for themselves than representing their own party members?

Surely a political party is an organisation designed to express the views of its members? If not enough people in the country support the policies and outlook of a party it doesn't get elected, isn't that the entire system?

What's the point of joining a party and then changing everything you/they stand for just to get into power? Logically the only way to stay true to your orignal intent is to bullshit to get into power and then double-cross all those who voted for you except your party faithful. Is that their plan?

Well quite.

In theory an MP's focus should be, from most important to least, Country > Party > Self, but in practice it tends to be Self > Party > Country

Corbyn is definately the former, though I do worry about some of his international views. Hopefully he'll make clear he's not going to change the government line on falklands/ni, then I'd probably be quite interested in what his platform would be for the next election.

 

[tomtom94]

If Corbyn wins and Natalie Bennett is still Green leader at the next election Labour should scoop up pretty much all of their votes outside brighton (assuming left wing candidates).

Green party leadership elections are every two years, so she might be out of a job (I'm pretty sure in 2018 if not sooner they'd put Lucas in charge of the election campaign)

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Green party leadership elections are every two years, so she might be out of a job (I'm pretty sure in 2018 if not sooner they'd put Lucas in charge of the election campaign)

You'd think so, but the national party can often have radically different views. IDS had to be crowbarred out by MP's in the end, even though everyone could see he was doing disastorously.

has there been any polling of the green membership since her horrific pre-election interviews?

 

[twobear]

If that it what it means, then it seems to me a peculiarly skewed vision of business owners and not one that I would readily apply to my landlord or my plumber or the restaurant next door or the 700 small businesses within a half-mile of my shop, or indeed to me.

You don't consider yourself to be an entrepreneur?

I agree in any case that he needs to directly address small businesses.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But doesn't that mean that they are more worried about securing power for themselves than representing their own party members?

The idea is that "my party that's had to make some compromises is better than the other party", basically. You can't govern from opposition - if you want to change things, by and large, you need to get elected.

 

[ruttyboy]

The idea is that "my party that's had to make some compromises is better than the other party", basically. You can't govern from opposition - if you want to change things, by and large, you need to get elected.

Fair enough, but I can't help but think the better approach (and that which used to prevail in politics) is to convince the electorate that your opinions are correct and so make them their opinions too, rather than just pander to whatever they happen to believe at the moment when presumably the party in power already fills that gap, hence why they were elected.

It's surely a contradiction that, in order to secure power 'to effect change', you change your policies to those of those already in power and therefore change nothing even if you are elected?

 

[phisheep]

You don't consider yourself to be an entrepreneur?

Not such as to be bracketed with equity funds and billionaires, no! (with all that that might entail, such as possibly punitive taxation for example)

I'm closer to an underpaid exploited worker than I am to either of those two.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Blair government was briefed about allegations against an ex labour minister who is I think still an mp, before the investigation was shut down.

This one is going to explode.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blair-government-briefed-police-paedophile-6123122#

 

[tomtom94]

Obama reckons we should stay in the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33646704

 

[twobear]

The Labour leader stuff is getting increasingly pathetic. It seems like three of the candidates would prefer to be Tories. Why even join the Labour Party if you're not even going to pretend to be left wing, and in fact, act like a petulant shit at the prospect of Labour being left wing?

 

[CyclopsRock]

https://twitter.com/JoeWatts_/status/624105789477752833

Here's why "what labour party membership want" won't win any elections.

Fair enough, but I can't help but think the better approach (and that which used to prevail in politics) is to convince the electorate that your opinions are correct and so make them their opinions too, rather than just pander to whatever they happen to believe at the moment when presumably the party in power already fills that gap, hence why they were elected.

It's surely a contradiction that, in order to secure power 'to effect change', you change your policies to those of those already in power and therefore change nothing even if you are elected?

Well, bit of this, bit of that, right? You're correct that there's no point just grabbing all the policies of the other party in order to win. But then, no one really does that. They might grab some. Elections always have at least two options which might be similar but do offer two "directions" - more left or more right? If the left option wins, they can move more that way. If the right option wins - well, I know which way I'd move.

The Labour leader stuff is getting increasingly pathetic. It seems like three of the candidates would prefer to be Tories. Why even join the Labour Party if you're not even going to pretend to be left wing, and in fact, act like a petulant shit at the prospect of Labour being left wing?

They probably want to stop being professional election losers tbh.

 

[twobear]

Well, bit of this, bit of that, right? You're correct that there's no point just grabbing all the policies of the other party in order to win. But then, no one really does that. They might grab some. Elections always have at least two options which might be similar but do offer two "directions" - more left or more right? If the left option wins, they can move more that way. If the right option wins - well, I know which way I'd move.

As long as Labour play this game, they will never, ever succeed in moving the political discourse in the UK to the left. We saw it with Blair. All that he succeeded in doing was shifting the UK political spectrum towards the right.

No matter who wins the Labour Leadership election, they'll kill the left wing for a generation. Exciting time to be a young person left leaning person in the UK, I'm sure you can imagine.

[edit] That poll is interesting too. So far as I can tell, the only halfway significant reason Labour lost the election, then, is because Milliband wasn't a good leader.