Be Excellent To Each Other

Oh, I don't mean to say that I find it hard to understand the feeling of schadenfreude that it would bring about in people who think that a Labour party under Corbyn would be unelectable (I more than understand that... I could imagine feeling it myself if, for example, UKIP somehow voted in Ainslie Harriet to head their party: a OTT black man with no political background whatsoever) - I could imagine teh party supporters would turn away in droves whilst he waved packets of couscous around, but that would be different as I don't find anything to vehemently oppose in Ainslie Harriet (OK, I totally picked him at random because I've just had couscous for my lunch, if he turns out to have done something awful then pick some other completely benign person). The party would collapse and that would be one more menace out of the way (though, as always, fear the thing that takes its place... Sometimes it is better the devil you know...)

Where I would worry, however, is wishing that an opposition party did vote in someone who did have actual political ideas that they wanted to push, and that clearly had lit at least something in the public and media attention, which seems to be a bit more akin to how some Conservatives have reacted to Corbyn. He seems to have gathered a bit of media steam and has at least a chance of actually making a few waves. He is increasing in popularity and whether you think he'd make the party unelectable or not he'd at the very least be taking a fair few supporters along on his own vision of the Labour party, and as this progressed, more people might prick up their ears and think that maybe, actually, this is the change that the Labour Party need.

All of those disillusioned Labour fallers, who have been labour left, who have dropped by the wayside at the shift towards centre of the Labour Party, disheartened by the Blair brand politics and everything that followed, might pick up their interest again, bring back numbers from those who have defected either membership or support to the Greens and the failed belief in the Lib Dems being the actual route for change.

Anyway, politics is has been all too depressing of late, and I have both ice cream and lemonade that I'm pretty sure this baby is insisting I blend together right now

Oh, is it? Heh, I didn't realise that. I assumed it was an American person because of the gun. And I didn't realise he was so old.

Oh, think twice...

Good piece by Monbiot today.

I do wonder how many potential Labour voters there are out there who just flat out didn't bother at the last election and/or were alienated during the Blair/Brown years. (Or defected to another party.)

Is it conceivable there's a substantial 'hidden' political demographic out there who'd vote for a Labour party led by Corbyn?

You have to remember that Thatcher was pretty much hated in the Conservative hierarchy in her run-up to becoming leader, with the Tory grandees of the time thinking it was inconceivable that the party could win an election with her as leader.....



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ible-dream

It's easy, I guess, to focus on the shambolic in-fighting of the Labour Party in these interesting times, and besides this entertaining sideshow, most people's ire, when talking party politics, tends to focus on the terrible economic legacy foisted upon the nation by Labour's last disastrous administration.

However, another long held and oft quoted bugbear of mine is their equally disastrous education legacy - useless comprehensive schools, so-called "grade inflation" to make our ever more poorly educated kids look better (for politicians' sake, not the kids') and of course, universities chock-full of kids who really shouldn't be there (and wouldn't have been there back in the grant-maintained days of 1997), getting themselves £30k in debt or more before they even start work, only to find their very expensively-obtained degree (in both monetary and lost time terms when they could've be learning something useful and marketable), is actually either useless and/or unwanted by their employers.

Take a look at this from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; it makes for sorry reading:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33983048

Gah. Labour's DEGREE = GOOD idiotic over-simplification, as per, costing our young people, and the country dear. Idiots.

I'm not convinced that the ills of the education system are political in nature as compared to societal. Not overly sure what any politician can do about it.

But surely, it is a wholly political matter? Politicians determine education policy, how schools are run and by whom etc. In the case of the big push to get "50% of all kids into university", this was a much trumpeted, clear aim of New Labour; part of Blair's oft-stated "Education, education, education" mantra (when they weren't saying "no more boom and bust", that is).

The point is, Labour introduced massive sea-changes from 1997 on, be that tearing down the regulatory framework for the financial sector, greatly increased immigration or this, massively stepping up university places (with tuition fees levied to students as a result, of course).

Actions, consequences etc.; these are surely political acts.

They've apologised for the banks' collapse and uncontrolled immigration - perhaps it's now time to 'fess up on their cocked up education and university policies as well...

I know this is a serious debate and all, but you know - PETER CHEESE.

The guy I know with the surname Cheese doesn't like cheese. He also married a girl called French, but - sadly - they didn't double-barrel it.

A missed opportunity, I feel!

Yay!! Agent Starling, how are you?

Meh, don't worry about telling gags in this thread lol. What's the betting he's The Big Cheese?

Smell my cheeeese!

Starling!

Hey Cavey, yes I'm good thanks. Haven't posted for a year or so due to stuff, but still been lurking on a regular basis and keeping up with everything.

I don't think Labour started the issue, although they didn't do anything to make it better (indeed, I think that they did magnify the problem). If anything I think it started with the Tories pushing University education so hard, the conversion of the polytechnics etc, as a barely disguised ploy to get as many 18-21 year olds out of the employment market (and more fundamentally, out of the unemployment figures).

I left school in 1996 for example, which means that my Uni applications were made in 95. I, and several others, were threatened with suspension from our sixth form for refusing to make UCAS applications on the grounds that we were not going to university - in the end we had to put bullshit applications in as it was shown to us that applying for university places was a condition of being in the sixth form (anecdotally, because the school got paid £X per sixth form student plus £Y (non small figure) extra for everyone who progressed to higher education and £0 for anyone who got a job.)

I think the best thing about Russell Brand is his comedy timing.

Pre Election
"Don't Vote. It's pointless!"
*Voter registration ends*
"Yeah, so Vote labour. Oh, its too late for me to suggest that? Tits."

Post Election
"I was wrong to change my mind. Voting and political parties are pointless. Silly me."
*Labour election registration ends*
"Yeah, Vote Corbyn - he's the man to sort this out. Oh, its too late for me to sort that out? Tits."

"Hi! My interest in your political party, at a time when your popularity is low and voter turnout has never been lower, is so strong that I am willing to pay actual money for a say in its future. Please take my actual money and involve me."

"No thanks lol."

Hmm. When the 'actual money' is a whole £3 I'm not sure that's a compelling argument for the motives of the people in question. I'm not saying they should be rejecting applications or anything, I'm just saying the cash involved is of no consequence at all.

In terms of money coming in, sure. But in terms of voter involvement it's absolutely massive. A third of this country didn't give enough of a shit this year to go to a polling booth and tick a box. By comparison to that incredible low bar, taking the time to register to vote in the Labour elections and then paying real money is a significant commitment to getting involved in politics.

Edit -- so it would probably be better to encourage as much of that as possible, and only refuse people a vote in the most extreme of cases. As opposed to openly asking other party members to screenshot each others social media accounts so your leadership can root out inappropriate behaviour like some sort of Lidl own-brand Orwellian figurine.

It's funny ti stick it to the man and get rage against the machine to number 1 at Christmas, not fun to stick it to the man when the boot is on the other foot.


Also, what DocG says.

I've heard it said that the Labour Purge is an intentionally illegal act (especially coupled with the fact the party are still keeping the £3) in the hope that one expunged supporter raises a legal challenge so that they can restart the whole thing, as Corbyn wouldn't get 35 votes from MPs next time around.

Its a farce all round, there's no way that the Tories are carrying this potential majority on their own, and are now probably shitting themselves too, because they created the initial surge of support and publicity. Until that point he was an unknown fringe candidate with very little press coverage.

I wasn't thinking of it in terms of income for the party so much as that a commitment of £3 from the person applying is such a low amount that it doesn't guarantee any kind of good faith on their part. I take your point that on the surface of it paying three quid and signing up to something would seem like more effort than just going to a polling booth for free but (a) people are weird and applying for something from the comfort of your own home will be seen as 'easier' by some than going out of your way to go to a location you wouldn't usually visit and (b) if you assume a narrative of anti-Labour people signing up just to essentially troll the party then those exact people will be more than motivated enough to hurdle this very low barrier to entry. Granted, that last point does shade into conspiracy theory paranoia but you only need to look at our own Cavey's distastefully giddy crowing at the idea of Labour falling apart to see that there are plenty of people with a bad enough attitude that it's not impossible this is happening.

Don't get me wrong, I'm far from convinced by these ideas but I also don't think it's quite as cut-and-dried stupid a position to take as your post makes out, is all. Having opened up the floodgates though I've no idea how they could sensibly manage this problem--if indeed a problem exists--because I do agree that almost randomly blacklisting people the way they're doing is just weird. It'll also do nothing to get the whole thing done and decided so the party can begin properly moving forward; all this nonsense will just extend the 'Labour falling apart' narrative for even longer than necessary.

I can see why there would be cause to restart the voting, but not to restart the nomination process - the party membership played no part in that.

"The nominations were made in good faith as part of a process that was defined from start to end - we've redefined part of that process and so we can only assume that this influenced the nominations to the extent that we should start from the beginning again to be certain"

What do you mean, here? That... What... You don't want Take That to be number 1 at Christmas?

Is this something you've seen somewhere, or what you might foresee being the justification of rebooting the process from nomination down?

If Labour do overturn the election and re-start to knock Corbyn out there will be no credibility or recovery in the party as far as a massive proportion of potential voters are concerned. They
L be shooting themselves in their other foot,

Never underestimate the foolishness of the PLP.

Well yeah, sure there's some truth in that; to be completely fair about it, it could be argued there were at least the beginnings of "a trajectory" at the 1997 close of the Tory administration. As you say, though, these tentative beginnings and reviews are worlds apart from the flying-anvil actions of Blunkett et al, at the start of 1998; "magnification" would seem quite the understatement IMO.

Well, very good to hear from you AS, I remember our chats way back in the WoS days, you were one of my few political allies
But seriously, hope all is well with stuff, hope you fancy chipping in again from time to time, for old time's sake.

Distasteful? "Bad attitude"? Heh. In your opinion, maybe, but hardly some universal truth.

I've made no bones about my unalloyed delight at Labour's disintegration and laughably farcical leadership election as it wrestles with new-found democratic accountability (however ineptly implemented) on the part of ordinary members actually deciding the outcome (as compared, say, to a "union fix"), as against its dyed-in-the-wool instincts for central "party" control.

As I've said, though, the basis of my "giddy crowing" in this matter is actually because, you know, I find their record on the economy, foreign policy, education and a whole host of other stuff distinctly "distasteful" myself - even the stuff they haven't apologised for (yet).

I suspect even most people within the parliamentary Labour Party know that Corbyn will be a disaster for them, and they're now ruing their little stunt to get his nomination in.

I also suspect many of them would dearly love to shed the "swivel-eyed contingent" within their Party once and for all, and this could be a way to do it - but there's absolutely no chance they'll have the stomach for it now, what with 300,000-odd new members, associate members or whatever, most of whom who've no doubt bought into the whole swivel-eyed bandwagon (just like they did in Greece by electing Syriza, another bunch of hard left wing swivel-eyes - that worked out well for them, huh). They're stuck with it, and them.

Gah, that tool Derek "Deggsy" Hatton was on R4 this morning coming out of his long-silent dormancy - older readers might remember him as the cream of the crop (ahem) of the 80s 'Militant Tendency' wing of (old) Labour, parading round Liverpool in his private-plated new Jag if memory serves. If ever there was a harbinger of doom etc.

In fairness to Greece, the issue was absolutely not caused by the incumbent government.

Agreed, but then let's be frank, they didn't exactly help (what was an admittedly hopeless position), and nor could they cash a single one of the cheques they were so irresponsibly (IMO) writing to the Greek electorate either. If you'll pardon the pun about cheques...

Not doing the discussion justice to be sure, but essentially, the 'Greek problem' can be said to be very largely due to that State living ludicrously beyond its means, for years/decades (presumably because it was "unfair" etc. to do otherwise, as so often the clarion call of the Left and bollocks to the consequences), albeit massively exacerbated by the ill conceived Euro to be sure. The former issue is, of course, very much an attribute and characteristic of swivel-eyed left wing administrations the world over, though, past and present. From what he's said thus far, I hardly expect Corbyn would disappoint on that score.

Greece has been more conservative than socialist over the past decade or two though, so overspending is certainly not just the preserve of the left (indeed, Thatcher spent quite a lot back in the day, compared to recent UK governments).

Can't really get too much into this now, Curio ( ), but let's be honest here. I'm sure some previous Greek governments have described themselves as "conservative" but I hardly think that, ah, people retiring en masse at 45/50 on huge State pensions, a massive public sector and lets say a rather Laissez faire attitude to taxation and collection of taxes in particular, amounts to a right of centre administration.

In my view, overspending [of other people's] money *is* very much a preserve and universal characteristic of the Left. But then, you knew that.

I see 'swivel-eyed' appeared on someone's Word of the Day calendar.

Hey, it's Mister Constructive once again.

In my mind's eye, you remind me of "Blinky", the ghost in Pacman, Bamba. An interesting discussion starts; various "pacmen" are happily eating little dots and power pills - and then you come along with your miserable pedantry, tiresome shite and/or other personal agenda and ... dweeewee---oooo-wip!!wip!! Hey, you know the rest, right?

I've never bothered before in 10-odd years, but you know, time to update my user control panel methinks. No more "Blinky", you can piss and whine to your heart's content, I won't have to read another bile-infused sentence of it. Bliss.

Achilles'?

That Blinky analogy is just plain weird, right?

Dunno, possibly. Made me laugh though.

Yeah, it's fairly bonkers stuff and misses the mark on pretty much every level.

... "The mark" being you ignoring any content whatsoever and just trolling about the use of term "swivel eyed"?

Look, I'm basically saying you only turn up in my threads/posts to nitpick and be irritating for the sake of it, not adding any value to the discussion, which I don't really think even you could argue with. Personally I wish you'd just go away, leave me alone and/or get a life, but realise that's a vain hope indeed. So I'm just going to ignore you from this point.

I know what you were saying. But your little 'Blinky' story was weird and mad and didn't accomplish any of what you were trying to get across. Anyway, shouldn't you have me on ignore by now?

Just what this forum needs, more people ignoring each other!

Can we all play nicely.

You must be new to the Internet!

Riiight, anyway, interesting news from the Corbyn camp this morning, I understand he's considering all-women railway carriages in response to rising assaults on women on public transport:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34059249

The objective of rendering public transport safer for any group, including women, is of course entirely laudable. But women-only carriages? Surely that is basically tarring all men, 99.99% of whom would not dream of harming any woman, with the same brush?

If security needs to be improved, and I'm sure it does, what's wrong with measures that protect everyone such as CCTV on all carriages and station platforms (and other modern tech), plain-clothes and uniformed transport police on trains and suchlike?

It's a non-story.

He was asked if he would consider it. He said he would, under advisement and in conjunction with women.

Had he refused to even consider it, the stories would likely be twice as vehement, "Corbyn puts our women at risk!".

Given how crowded commuter trains are, and given train companies will not buy any more stock, it is a fucking risible idea to set aside a carriage for women. The maths does not work. Idiot.