Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Turn up for the books.............The hard left guy gets on the ballot for the Labour leadership !!....Managed to bag 35 nominations although some were chucked at him by Burnham who will no doubt pick up many of his second preferences...........

Corbyn has no chance....

However it means one of the other three is likely to get hurt in the first round..........Corbyn no doubt will hoover up the extreme nutty left of which there are no doubt plenty in the Labour party and will probably get enough to take him through the first round !!...

(Cruddas finished top in the 2007 Deputy leader race after the first round (He was the "left" candidate)...Of course Harman and Johnson did better as the rounds progresses with second prefs...)

That means one of the three favorites is likely to be eliminated first..................

Latest odds............

Burnham 10/11
Kendall 5/2
Cooper 3/1
Corbyn 66/1 .................

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I'm currently in the process of resigning my membership of the Labour party.

I work with the Royal Navy and in particular with the nation's deterrent. This turkey will not be voting for christmas, unless Corbyn's position on Trident changes Labour are now unalectable for me.

If I want an end to Austerity and scrapping Trident I'll vote SNP. Labour will now have a very hard time distinguishing themselves from the SNP in Scotland and hence have hamstrung their chances further of being elected into the UK parliament.

Labour being similar to the SNP in Scotland puts them in a far better position than being similar to the Tories. Be honest, they can't have done much worse than in May.

I'm against Trident because Britain don't need it.............We are your closest ally and we are hardly going to allow someone to hit you with nukes......

Use all this wasted money on improving living standards instead......

"Corbyn is a threat to the safety of the Country".........Bollox.

I went to a Labour meeting tonight and got ripped to shreds by the new members there

Tell us more good sir...

Was called 'a red tory' and 'a traitor' for not voting for Corbyn as well as having other insults hurled at me

Thought you'd appreciate a bit more passion in the party Wheels....

My advice.....Grow your hair long...Grow a beard and start using your middle finger more...

If you can't beat em join em..

Well you can laugh at them when more labour mps lose their jobs at the next election.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thought you'd appreciate a bit more passion in the party Wheels....

My advice.....Grow your hair long...Grow a beard and start using your middle finger more...

If you can't beat em join em..

I'm more a soft left/left of centre type so i don't think they will see me as 'true labour'

Ent wrote:Well you can laugh at them when more labour mps lose their jobs at the next election.

The Tories were meant to be laughing when they were odds on to p**s all over Gordon "Bigot" Brown.......Ended up 25 short.

Nothing is certain..

In my opinion governments are voted out.................Not in.

Tories won because Labour weren't getting voted for.

The more Labour mimic Conservatives the less Labour supporters have to or feel inclined to vote for them.  Labour voters didn't suddenly become die-hard Conservatives over-night - they simply chose not to vote for Labour.
Conservatives will now be a little more anxious about this Labour than the Miliband Labour because it will obviously be much more an opposing voice that will home-in on any electorate discontent and offer a genuine alternative view.  Leftie Labour will be a much more potent enemy than Miliband's pale version was.  

Discontents will always chase after the strongest voice of protest.  And on that account, the party that will be most fearful about Leftie Labour is actually UKIP.  Their protest voice might get smothered now by the renewed vigour of the Labour one.

There was nothing particularly Blairite about Ed Milliband, the man was quite left leaning and so were his policies. He was just unpopular.

I hardly think a terrorist apologist and a chancellor who dreams of the demise of capitalism will win any elections either.

Left leaning my arse, Rugger  (language directed for effect not at you)

But no - there was nothing left about Labour under Miliband.  He didn't need to be Blairite, all he needed to be was the new kind of Labour minister that felt oh so comfortable speaking for business sense and prudence and defence.
People that vote aren't dumb.  A Labour Government under Miliband wouldn't have looked much different to the one that went before.  And people knew it - thus the anger from the Milibandish people now that Labour has supposedly gone left.
Miliband would merely have been a new chief exec with subtle differences of opinion on how to balance the books, hardly ideologically different.  Cameron kept taunting Miliband for having nothing practical to say about how he'd balance the books only guff.  Miliband was often made look small by the attacks because his brain tried to retort using Conservative ideals to restructure the books.  Cameron was goading Miliband to offer up Conservative-like prudence measures.  Corbyn will not be distracted from presenting the ideological message.

Electable?  Not my point.  Followable for many people that will be against anything and everything the new Conservative government does? - for sure.

SecretFly wrote:Tories won because Labour weren't getting voted for.

The more Labour mimic Conservatives the less Labour supporters have to or feel inclined to vote for them.  Labour voters didn't suddenly become die-hard Conservatives over-night - they simply chose not to vote for Labour.
Conservatives will now be a little more anxious about this Labour than the Miliband Labour because it will obviously be much more an opposing voice that will home-in on any electorate discontent and offer a genuine alternative view.  Leftie Labour will be a much more potent enemy than Miliband's pale version was.  

Discontents will always chase after the strongest voice of protest.  And on that account, the party that will be most fearful about Leftie Labour is actually UKIP.  Their protest voice might get smothered now by the renewed vigour of the Labour one.

Remember the 80s is all you hear..............

But lest not forget.......Nixon lost the Presidential election in 60............Then got hammered for the Governorship of California in 62.....Then he retired to practice Law..

and "The Loser" ended up in the white house in 68..........

If history tells us anything...it's that strange things happen

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:There was nothing particularly Blairite about Ed Milliband, the man was quite left leaning and so were his policies. He was just unpopular.

I hardly think a terrorist apologist and a chancellor who dreams of the demise of capitalism will win any elections either.

Huh? You don't think Sands was courageous? I seem to recall the Tories being the ones who negotiated with IRA/Sinn Fein (so much for not talking to one's enemies) and the Masters of the Universe have so obviously succeeded where the global economy is concerned haven't they? Crash, after crash, after crash and yet they still propose the same approach. Talk about stupid. Communism forgot about the human factor and so has capitalism. The current scenario is clearly broken but the patient hasn't realised its dead/dying yet.

So much of the current rhetoric re. Corbyn is laughable - why don't we all sit back and see what they actually do over the next 12 months or so? Personally, I agree with a lot he says, albeit not all. I particularly don't agree re. Trident and the Falklands but there's a lot else that at least seems potentially workable and/or sensible. Something to work with in any case.

SecretFly wrote:Left leaning my arse, Rugger  (language directed for effect not at you)

But no - there was nothing left about Labour under Miliband.  He didn't need to be Blairite, all he needed to be was the new kind of Labour minister that felt oh so comfortable speaking for business sense and prudence and defence.
People that vote aren't dumb.  A Labour Government under Miliband wouldn't have looked much different to the one that went before.  And people knew it - thus the anger from the Milibandish people now that Labour has supposedly gone left.
Miliband would merely have been a new chief exec with subtle differences of opinion on how to balance the books, hardly ideologically different.  Cameron kept taunting Miliband for having nothing practical to say about how he'd balance the books only guff.  Miliband was often made look small by the attacks because his brain tried to retort using Conservative ideals to restructure the books.  Cameron was goading Miliband to offer up Conservative-like prudence measures.  Corbyn will not be distracted from presenting the ideological message.

Electable?  Not my point.  Followable for many people that will be against anything and everything the new Conservative government does? - for sure.

Voters aren't dumb? You sure about that secretfly? It's a much repeated mantra by politicians who can't afford to upset the electorate but a large portion of voters are thicker than pea soup. And many who aren't don't have the time or interest to fully understand the policy differences. Working class Tories full of rule Britannia jingoism kept the Tories in power for years without getting anything back for it.

Miliband was virtually unelectable in my opinion because he was a dork. It's harsh but it's true. He turned the contest into a handicap race before he'd dreamed up his policies.

Without a dramatic sea change in the values of our society... And I mean dramatic... Corbyn is unelectable for different reasons. There may well be a mid-term 'social conscience meets fed up with austerity' swing to the left but I think it's pretty unlikely to be holding sway come the night you have to stick a cross in the box.

That's assuming labour hasn't split and without consideration to the Scottish vote.

But hey, these dramatic swings can and do happen in history. What do I know, I'm just not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

This it will make the Holyrood elections interesting. The SNP heavily muscled in on labour's socialist ideals.

Holyrood will be an acid test on Nationalism in Scotland. The Westminster election was an anti austerity vote in Scotland IMO, not another cry for independence. We'll see if Corbyn can separate the Nationalists and the Socialists who were disenfranchised with Labour.

milkyboy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Left leaning my arse, Rugger  (language directed for effect not at you)

But no - there was nothing left about Labour under Miliband.  He didn't need to be Blairite, all he needed to be was the new kind of Labour minister that felt oh so comfortable speaking for business sense and prudence and defence.
People that vote aren't dumb.  A Labour Government under Miliband wouldn't have looked much different to the one that went before.  And people knew it - thus the anger from the Milibandish people now that Labour has supposedly gone left.
Miliband would merely have been a new chief exec with subtle differences of opinion on how to balance the books, hardly ideologically different.  Cameron kept taunting Miliband for having nothing practical to say about how he'd balance the books only guff.  Miliband was often made look small by the attacks because his brain tried to retort using Conservative ideals to restructure the books.  Cameron was goading Miliband to offer up Conservative-like prudence measures.  Corbyn will not be distracted from presenting the ideological message.

Electable?  Not my point.  Followable for many people that will be against anything and everything the new Conservative government does? - for sure.

Voters aren't dumb? You sure about that secretfly? It's a much repeated mantra by politicians who can't afford to upset the electorate but a large portion of voters are thicker than pea soup. And many who aren't don't have the time or interest to fully understand the policy differences. Working class Tories full of rule Britannia jingoism kept the Tories in power for years without getting anything back for it.

Miliband was virtually unelectable in my opinion because he was a dork. It's harsh but it's true. He turned the contest into a handicap race before he'd dreamed up his policies.

Without a dramatic sea change in the values of our society... And I mean dramatic... Corbyn is unelectable for different reasons. There may well be a mid-term 'social conscience meets fed up with austerity' swing to the left but I think it's pretty unlikely to be holding sway come the night you have to stick a cross in the box.

That's assuming labour hasn't split and without consideration to the Scottish vote.

But hey, these dramatic swings can and do happen in history. What do I know, I'm just not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

George Bush was a dork...............Thing is Gore stupidly didn't cut ties with the unpopular Clinton who lied about that dress and survived impeachment..

Miliband had a problem with a recovering economy...Good job figures and a government that had raised the bottom rate for low earners....

Also the SNP in Downing street and house buying scheme made good headway !!....

Too simplistic to say Miliband was unelectable..................Look at Calvin Coolidge, Jimmy Carter and Warren Harding in America..

Governments lose............Oppositions don't win is what I believe......

Miliband lacked leadership quality but people weren't ready for change..

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:This it will make the Holyrood elections interesting. The SNP heavily muscled in on labour's socialist ideals.

Holyrood will be an acid test on Nationalism in Scotland. The Westminster election was an anti austerity vote in Scotland IMO, not another cry for independence. We'll see if Corbyn can separate the Nationalists and the Socialists who were disenfranchised with Labour.

interesting rugger... I'd kind of assumed that it was more a national frustration that they'd 'bottled' the independence chance and were back in groundhog day.

The public ain't Dumb in the sense that even the least educated humanbeing has human instincts for bull.  And when Bull gets talked, they instinctively know it even though they might not understand the detail.  Labour waffled and people knew it was waffle... the waffle signals were there - polished performances of nothing said... politico personalities doing the rounds at studios.  Tombstone declarations
People, even dumb ones, are more and more rejecting the polish of spin doctors and image consultants.

I was just laughing at the Australian stuff yesterday.  The new boy on the block there had the old closed fist with the thumb extended thing going on.  That guff is taught by people who get a lot of money to teach it.  It supposedly works (according to the people who get paid to teach it )  But the watching world sees it for what it is now.  Time for the politicians to sack the image consultants and speech perfectors.  Come as they are or just don't come.

milkyboy wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:This it will make the Holyrood elections interesting. The SNP heavily muscled in on labour's socialist ideals.

Holyrood will be an acid test on Nationalism in Scotland. The Westminster election was an anti austerity vote in Scotland IMO, not another cry for independence. We'll see if Corbyn can separate the Nationalists and the Socialists who were disenfranchised with Labour.

interesting rugger... I'd kind of assumed that it was more a national frustration that they'd 'bottled' the independence chance and were back in groundhog day.

depends on who you talk to milky. The SNP "bottled" their chance at independence more than the Scottish people.

Independence was their sole purpose for the 40 years they have been a political party and the white paper was so full of holes most voters who made the decision with the head rather than the heart had only one choice.

The SNP couldn't answer any of the tough questions despite years of preperation. Those questions will still be hard to answer in the inevitable rerun...

What gets me is that many people from slum estates don't vote and yet they must know that that the Tories are going to go after their benefits....

When you consider that there are generally plenty of people like these in most constituencies and the Tories only sneaked a small majority..

It shows what a waste of space these people are............Can't even be bothered nipping down to the station once in 5 years..

If they didn't have kids who will suffer as a result............I wouldn't give a crap..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Left leaning my arse, Rugger  (language directed for effect not at you)

But no - there was nothing left about Labour under Miliband.  He didn't need to be Blairite, all he needed to be was the new kind of Labour minister that felt oh so comfortable speaking for business sense and prudence and defence.
People that vote aren't dumb.  A Labour Government under Miliband wouldn't have looked much different to the one that went before.  And people knew it - thus the anger from the Milibandish people now that Labour has supposedly gone left.
Miliband would merely have been a new chief exec with subtle differences of opinion on how to balance the books, hardly ideologically different.  Cameron kept taunting Miliband for having nothing practical to say about how he'd balance the books only guff.  Miliband was often made look small by the attacks because his brain tried to retort using Conservative ideals to restructure the books.  Cameron was goading Miliband to offer up Conservative-like prudence measures.  Corbyn will not be distracted from presenting the ideological message.

Electable?  Not my point.  Followable for many people that will be against anything and everything the new Conservative government does? - for sure.

Voters aren't dumb? You sure about that secretfly? It's a much repeated mantra by politicians who can't afford to upset the electorate but a large portion of voters are thicker than pea soup. And many who aren't don't have the time or interest to fully understand the policy differences. Working class Tories full of rule Britannia jingoism kept the Tories in power for years without getting anything back for it.

Miliband was virtually unelectable in my opinion because he was a dork. It's harsh but it's true. He turned the contest into a handicap race before he'd dreamed up his policies.

Without a dramatic sea change in the values of our society... And I mean dramatic... Corbyn is unelectable for different reasons. There may well be a mid-term 'social conscience meets fed up with austerity' swing to the left but I think it's pretty unlikely to be holding sway come the night you have to stick a cross in the box.

That's assuming labour hasn't split and without consideration to the Scottish vote.

But hey, these dramatic swings can and do happen in history. What do I know, I'm just not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

George Bush was a dork...............Thing is Gore stupidly didn't cut ties with the unpopular Clinton who lied about that dress and survived impeachment..

Miliband had a problem with a recovering economy...Good job figures and a government that had raised the bottom rate for low earners....

Also the SNP in Downing street and house buying scheme made good headway !!....

Too simplistic to say Miliband was unelectable..................Look at Calvin Coolidge, Jimmy Carter and Warren Harding in America..

Governments lose............Oppositions don't win is what I believe......

Miliband lacked leadership quality but people weren't ready for change..

I know truss, but that's america... you elected ronald reagan for god's sake. And dubya didn't look like gromit and sound like wallace.

We've had this argument before fella as you will remember. I said labour wouldn't win with miliband in charge when they had a big lead in the polls... now the scottish desertion may have been hard to predict but this was an election there to be won, by an organised opposition led by someone with credibility and charisma.

There are those who vote on policy, those that vote on habit etc etc...and there are some who are heavily influenced by personality. Doesn't mean they say that when a pollster asks them... just like no-one admits to being influenced by the media. If I say I don't trust labour's economic policy am i saying i don't trust the policy or am i saying the man tasked with convincing me lacks the credibility to do so adequately? He was a handicap.

As for incumbents lose rather than opposition win... there's some truth in that certainly, changes in government generally coincide with periods of economic downturn... it doesn't matter who's fault it really is, the current government get the blame. Now there may have been some improved figures, but this was on the whole a period of austerity... it was there to be won by a credible opposition.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:This it will make the Holyrood elections interesting. The SNP heavily muscled in on labour's socialist ideals.

Holyrood will be an acid test on Nationalism in Scotland. The Westminster election was an anti austerity vote in Scotland IMO, not another cry for independence. We'll see if Corbyn can separate the Nationalists and the Socialists who were disenfranchised with Labour.

interesting rugger... I'd kind of assumed that it was more a national frustration that they'd 'bottled' the independence chance and were back in groundhog day.

depends on who you talk to milky. The SNP "bottled" their chance at independence more than the Scottish people.

Independence was their sole purpose for the 40 years they have been a political party and the white paper was so full of holes most voters who made the decision with the head rather than the heart had only one choice.

The SNP couldn't answer any of the tough questions despite years of preperation. Those questions will still be hard to answer in the inevitable rerun...

good points, I just got the sense that there was a frustration that nothing was going to change and the country as a whole felt annoyed that they hadn't gone for it. Like I said, just my perecption, nothing to back it up. Personally i think it would be a shame if the the Uk got split up, but i respect the rights of the people to choose.

The best part of the the failure of the vote for independence was the look on alex salmond's face. Without wanting to over-egg my politics is personal argument, I was genuinely pleased that he hadn't got what he wanted!

How long has it been since Corbyn was appointed? I'm already sick to death of hearing his bloody name.

SecretFly wrote:The public ain't Dumb in the sense that even the least educated humanbeing has human instincts for bull.  And when Bull gets talked, they instinctively know it even though they might not understand the detail.  Labour waffled and people knew it was waffle... the waffle signals were there - polished performances of nothing said... politico personalities doing the rounds at studios.  Tombstone declarations
People, even dumb ones, are more and more rejecting the polish of spin doctors and image consultants.

I was just laughing at the Australian stuff yesterday.  The new boy on the block there had the old closed fist with the thumb extended thing going on.  That guff is taught by people who get a lot of money to teach it.  It supposedly works (according to the people who get paid to teach it )  But the watching world sees it for what it is now.  Time for the politicians to sack the image consultants and speech perfectors.  Come as they are or just don't come.

some truth in that certainly... although personally i think ed needed a better image consultant... One who could look him in the eye and tell him he was best suited for a job outside the public eye! As an intelligent man, who'd seen how michael foot and neil kinnock had been destroyed, he should have realised that himself. Ego got the better of him.

Seems like the guy had a good day at PMQs...

Think many of us foresaw a stuttering old man out of his depth....

Seemed to have played a good hand..

Started out with quiet competency, ended seeming a bit timid to be honest. Id expected some bite at least, ended up just serving Cameron some easy questions to smash out the park.

Not sure about the leader of the opposition crowdsourcing questions to ask the PM or giving others a go at the podium without either he or DC being absent. Seems a little bit like he's trying to duck Cameron a tad.

Trying to duck the theatre perhaps - lessen the impact of it. Slowly dissolve the importance of two boys, well rehearsed pretending to be off the cuff and adlib.

Can see why he wanted to change things up, and he was successful in that regard, which speaks well of him.

But change is a scalar, progression or regression are vectors. And its vectors that matter.

Yes he changed it up, but did anyone benefit? Some moron's might celebrate the more 'man of the people' approach, but what was gained? It was a cakewalk for DC. PMQs should be keeping the PM on his toes. Fine, ask him a crowd sourced question, good stuff, but don't let the PM troup out an easy answer and then let him off with no follow up and just another crowd sourced question.

JC has shown he's a 'man of the people', what he's not shown is that he's a capable opposition leader.

How much better would it have been if he'd asked his 'peoples question' and then, when DC gave a soft answer, he came back with his own ideas and gumption and pushed back against DC with more insightful and cutting questions??

It was his first PMQ's, give him a break.

30,000 people have joined the Labour party since Saturday...Too left wing for me but perhaps a flawed man who obviously cares about the less fortunate is en vogue....

Good luck to him....I'm sick of vapid, vacuous, supine, cliché ridden morons..

Time will tell...

It won't because he won't make it to 2020.......He'll be 71 then.....Won't happen

Ideal scenario for Labour he'll have taken some Ukipers back, SNP types back, Greens back and kept the left wing yellows they acquired in 2015.....He can then let the war hero Jarvis look to add some Tories to the fold....

Be very hard to paint a guy who's fought in three wars as a security risk..or as "weak" people will laugh at the Tories..

That's ideal...............Less than ideal is the ambition of Mrs balls types who's careers come before anything else..

How will he have taken some UKippers back?? Really struggling to see how you're adding that one up. Unless you mean Duty, becuase he's a gay UKipper and might like JC's stance on marriage equality.......

Hasn't he also said he/Labour won't back a Brexit? Couldn't be more juxtaposed with UKIP.

UKIP appealed to ex Labour voters not just because of the EU but other things too so he could win some of them back

wheelchair1991 wrote:UKIP appealed to ex Labour voters not just because of the EU but other things too so he could win some of them back

What other things?

Still can't see how people that went quite far right would be pulled to far left??

Note that key UKIP policies include Brexit and increased defence spending - both of which JC is against.

Pretty sure JC isn't anti-immigration either, UKIPs otehr key policy area.

Other key manifesto pledges included increased NHS spending and removing minimum wages earners out of tax - both of which are essentially covered by the Tories.

There's a decent chance that he'll lose a decent chunk of the more right leaning Labour voters from the last election too

I think Ed Miliband has lost most of them already GSC...

Labour lost a sizeable chunk to UKIP Toppy..

HOW?

Stop just saying stuff with no basis, support or reasoning.

They may well have lost some to UKIP, I don't doubt that, but people that left Labour because they didn't like Red Ed/the Labour party visision - why are they now going to come back under Corbyn????!!

Political betting did a chart on the breakup of UKIP voters in 2015 and it showed a pretty even split between Tories and Labour...

UKIP placed second in a lot of Labour strongholds.......ie constituencies in Sunderland..

I imagine a fair few of them were types that didn't think Ed was left wing enough....

Stop being rude..................I don't write anything without basis, support and resoning..

If Ed was Red, the faces of his past colleagues would not now be red on seeing who their new leader is.

The Ed people thought RED was DEAD. It's got a pacemaker now and they ain't bloody happy at the revival.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Political betting did a chart on the breakup of UKIP voters in 2015 and it showed a pretty even split between Tories and Labour...

UKIP placed second in a lot of Labour strongholds.......ie constituencies in Sunderland..

I imagine a fair few of them were types that didn't think Ed was left wing enough....

Stop being rude..................I don't write anything without basis, support and resoning..

AGAIN, please provide some support or reasoning!! Why would someone ever say, "That Ed, he's not left-wing enough for me, I need to join a far right party!!".

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That said, typical you really.....

From The Economist:

"BEFORE he had finished belting out his first celebratory rendition of “The Red Flag”, a hymn to class struggle, some of Jeremy Corbyn’s colleagues in Labour’s shadow cabinet had already handed in their resignations. A 66-year-old socialist, Mr Corbyn has spent 32 years as one of the hardest of hardline left-wingers in the House of Commons and a serial rebel on the Labour backbenches. On September 12th he flattened three moderate rivals (see article) to become leader of Britain’s main opposition party. Labour MPs are stunned—and perhaps none more so than Mr Corbyn himself.

Two views are emerging of Labour’s new leader. The more sympathetic is that, whatever you think of his ideology, Mr Corbyn will at least enrich Britain by injecting fresh ideas into a stale debate. Voters who previously felt uninspired by the say-anything, spin-everything candidates who dominate modern politics have been energised by Mr Corbyn’s willingness to speak his mind and condemn the sterile compromises of the centre left. The other is that Mr Corbyn does not matter because he is unelectable and he cannot last. His significance will be to usher in a second successive Conservative government in the election of 2020—and perhaps a third in 2025.

Both these views are complacent and wrong. Mr Corbyn’s election is bad for the Labour Party and bad for Britain, too.

Cowards flinch and traitors sneer

Start with the ideas. In recent decades the left has had the better of the social arguments—on gay rights, say, or the role of women and the status of the church—but the right has won most of the economic ones. Just as the Tory party has become more socially liberal, so, under Neil Kinnock and then Tony Blair, Labour dropped its old commitment to public ownership and accepted that markets had a role in providing public services. Mr Blair’s government put monetary policy in the hands of an independent Bank of England and embraced the free movement of people and goods within Europe.

The argument today has moved on—to the growing inequality that is a side-effect of new technology and globalisation; to the nature of employment, pensions and benefits in an Uberising labour market of self-employed workers (see article); and to the need for efficient government and welfare systems. Fresh thinking on all this would be welcome—indeed it should be natural territory for the progressive left. But Mr Corbyn is stuck in the past. His “new politics” has nothing to offer but the exhausted, hollow formulas which his predecessors abandoned for the very good reason that they failed.

Only in the timewarp of Mr Corbyn’s hard-left fraternity could a programme of renationalisation and enhanced trade-union activism be the solution to inequality. If just spending more money were the secret of world-class public services, Britain, which cut almost 1m public-sector jobs in the previous parliament, would have been a cauldron of discontent. In fact voters’ satisfaction with public services rose. If you could create macroeconomic stability by bringing the Bank of England back under the government’s thumb, then Britain would not have spent the post-war decades lurching from politically engineered booms to post-election busts.

Time and again, Mr Corbyn spots a genuine problem only to respond with a flawed policy. He is right that Britain sorely lacks housing. But rent controls would only exacerbate the shortage. The previous Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government should indeed have been less austere. It could have boosted demand by spending more on infrastructure. But Mr Corbyn’s notion of “people’s QE”—getting the Bank of England to print money to pay for projects—threatens to become an incontinent fiscal stimulus by the backdoor (rather than serve as an unorthodox form of monetary policy when interest rates are at zero). There is no denying that young people have been harmed by Tory policies that favour the old. But scrapping university-tuition fees would be regressive and counterproductive. For proof, consider that in England more poor students go to university than when higher education was free, whereas in Scotland, whose devolved government has abolished tuition fees, universities are facing a funding crisis and attract no more poor students than they did.

To see where Mr Corbyn’s heart lies, you have only to look at the company he has kept. He admires the late Hugo Chávez for his legacy in Venezuela. No matter that chavismo has wrecked the economy and hollowed out democracy. He indulges Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian kleptocracy in Russia and blames NATO for provoking its invasion of Ukraine. He entertains Hamas, which has repeatedly used violence against Israel and admires Syriza, the radical left party that has governed Greece with almost unmatched incompetence. Yet he is stridently anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-NATO and quietly anti-European Union (apparently, it’s a free-market conspiracy—see article). He even scolded China’s Communist Party for its free-market excesses.

To argue that Mr Corbyn’s ideas will improve the quality of political discourse in Britain just because they are different is about as wise as Mr Corbyn’s refusal this week to sing the national anthem at a service to commemorate the Battle of Britain. Policies this flawed will crowd out debate, not enrich it.

The Corbyn of history

Perhaps that doesn’t matter. Mr Corbyn had no expectation of winning the leadership, and for a man who has never had to compromise, the drudgery of party management, media appearances and relentless scrutiny must be a hardship. Even if he is not pushed, he may not choose to stay for long.

Yet the leader of the opposition is one Tory meltdown away from power. Even if Mr Corbyn fails ever to become prime minister, as is likely, he will still leave his mark on the Labour Party. The populism and discontent that brought him the leadership will not just subside. The loathing of Westminster that he represents and the fantasies that he spins will make the task for the next centrist Labour leader all the harder. There is nothing to celebrate about Mr Corbyn’s elevation. For Britain, it is a grave misfortune.

You're forgetting that the Liberals were in government............So that p**sed off people who thought that Labour and the Tories were too similar voted UKIP as a protest vote..

In the past the Liberals got the protest vote...

TopHat24/7 wrote:From The Economist:

"BEFORE he had finished belting out his first celebratory rendition of “The Red Flag”, a hymn to class struggle, some of Jeremy Corbyn’s colleagues in Labour’s shadow cabinet had already handed in their resignations. A 66-year-old socialist, Mr Corbyn has spent 32 years as one of the hardest of hardline left-wingers in the House of Commons and a serial rebel on the Labour backbenches. On September 12th he flattened three moderate rivals (see article) to become leader of Britain’s main opposition party. Labour MPs are stunned—and perhaps none more so than Mr Corbyn himself.

Two views are emerging of Labour’s new leader. The more sympathetic is that, whatever you think of his ideology, Mr Corbyn will at least enrich Britain by injecting fresh ideas into a stale debate. Voters who previously felt uninspired by the say-anything, spin-everything candidates who dominate modern politics have been energised by Mr Corbyn’s willingness to speak his mind and condemn the sterile compromises of the centre left. The other is that Mr Corbyn does not matter because he is unelectable and he cannot last. His significance will be to usher in a second successive Conservative government in the election of 2020—and perhaps a third in 2025.

Both these views are complacent and wrong. Mr Corbyn’s election is bad for the Labour Party and bad for Britain, too.

Cowards flinch and traitors sneer

Start with the ideas. In recent decades the left has had the better of the social arguments—on gay rights, say, or the role of women and the status of the church—but the right has won most of the economic ones. Just as the Tory party has become more socially liberal, so, under Neil Kinnock and then Tony Blair, Labour dropped its old commitment to public ownership and accepted that markets had a role in providing public services. Mr Blair’s government put monetary policy in the hands of an independent Bank of England and embraced the free movement of people and goods within Europe.

The argument today has moved on—to the growing inequality that is a side-effect of new technology and globalisation; to the nature of employment, pensions and benefits in an Uberising labour market of self-employed workers (see article); and to the need for efficient government and welfare systems. Fresh thinking on all this would be welcome—indeed it should be natural territory for the progressive left. But Mr Corbyn is stuck in the past. His “new politics” has nothing to offer but the exhausted, hollow formulas which his predecessors abandoned for the very good reason that they failed.

Only in the timewarp of Mr Corbyn’s hard-left fraternity could a programme of renationalisation and enhanced trade-union activism be the solution to inequality. If just spending more money were the secret of world-class public services, Britain, which cut almost 1m public-sector jobs in the previous parliament, would have been a cauldron of discontent. In fact voters’ satisfaction with public services rose. If you could create macroeconomic stability by bringing the Bank of England back under the government’s thumb, then Britain would not have spent the post-war decades lurching from politically engineered booms to post-election busts.

Time and again, Mr Corbyn spots a genuine problem only to respond with a flawed policy. He is right that Britain sorely lacks housing. But rent controls would only exacerbate the shortage. The previous Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government should indeed have been less austere. It could have boosted demand by spending more on infrastructure. But Mr Corbyn’s notion of “people’s QE”—getting the Bank of England to print money to pay for projects—threatens to become an incontinent fiscal stimulus by the backdoor (rather than serve as an unorthodox form of monetary policy when interest rates are at zero). There is no denying that young people have been harmed by Tory policies that favour the old. But scrapping university-tuition fees would be regressive and counterproductive. For proof, consider that in England more poor students go to university than when higher education was free, whereas in Scotland, whose devolved government has abolished tuition fees, universities are facing a funding crisis and attract no more poor students than they did.

To see where Mr Corbyn’s heart lies, you have only to look at the company he has kept. He admires the late Hugo Chávez for his legacy in Venezuela. No matter that chavismo has wrecked the economy and hollowed out democracy. He indulges Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian kleptocracy in Russia and blames NATO for provoking its invasion of Ukraine. He entertains Hamas, which has repeatedly used violence against Israel and admires Syriza, the radical left party that has governed Greece with almost unmatched incompetence. Yet he is stridently anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-NATO and quietly anti-European Union (apparently, it’s a free-market conspiracy—see article). He even scolded China’s Communist Party for its free-market excesses.

To argue that Mr Corbyn’s ideas will improve the quality of political discourse in Britain just because they are different is about as wise as Mr Corbyn’s refusal this week to sing the national anthem at a service to commemorate the Battle of Britain. Policies this flawed will crowd out debate, not enrich it.

The Corbyn of history

Perhaps that doesn’t matter. Mr Corbyn had no expectation of winning the leadership, and for a man who has never had to compromise, the drudgery of party management, media appearances and relentless scrutiny must be a hardship. Even if he is not pushed, he may not choose to stay for long.

Yet the leader of the opposition is one Tory meltdown away from power. Even if Mr Corbyn fails ever to become prime minister, as is likely, he will still leave his mark on the Labour Party. The populism and discontent that brought him the leadership will not just subside. The loathing of Westminster that he represents and the fantasies that he spins will make the task for the next centrist Labour leader all the harder. There is nothing to celebrate about Mr Corbyn’s elevation. For Britain, it is a grave misfortune.

The Economist that is sulking because it wanted Cooper as leader...........

Like a d4 post..

Quoting a right-of-centre magazine as if they offer an impartial view

Apparently Cameron doesn't think Corbyn will make a good Prime minister...

So that's it then..

Have a look at this charming graphic which illustrates how many more voters the Conservatives lost to UKIP than Labour did:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_votermigration.html

And it's highly unrealistic to expect even a few kippers to leave for Corbyn's Labour because...oh I don't know:

1) Most kippers are Thatcherites. Corbyn is a socialist.
2) UKIP want to leave the European Union. Corbyn doesn't.
3) UKIP have a sensible, pro-immigration idea; Corbyn doesn't.

That's just a few to start with!

Why did UKIP do so well in Labour strongholds like sunderland......

PROTEST vote..........