Be Excellent To Each Other

Heh. Yes of course, Redwood was catastrophically wrong - conceded many times, as now.
But I'm sorry, Doc, you can't compare being in Opposition (and supposedly influencing Brown of all people oh-so-much I'm sure [lol]), with you know, being in government. IIRC Redwood wasn't even in the Shadow Cabinet and was a mere backbench MP.

Look, you're more than welcome to believe the Tories would've made the same catastrophic mistakes as Labour for all I care, seriously, or even that they're actually to blame themselves. Just as I'm welcome to think that's desperate, absurd and above all - irrelevant, for the reasons stated.

Labour are demonstrably and inarguably economically incompetent. Which you know, is principally why they lost.

Sorry Doc.
Look, we're just not going to agree, okay?

How terrifying would a Trump/Palin ticket be?

Actually less terrifying than a Trump/Cruz ticket, weirdly.

The people whom Americans seem to frequently elect to high office is a source of bemusement and incredulity to me. IDGI, basically.

No different from Boris Johnson, tbf, or UKIP (admittedly not the the highest)

Hmm, wouldn't say no different, Curio.

Boris Johnson? Yup, the guy acts the clown but he really isn't one. Actually he's a very intelligent, articulate and astute individual, expensively educated to a very high standard (whether you agree with his politics or not).

tbf - (?)

UKIP - well, yeah, except we haven't actually elected them though; one solitary MP (who's not their leader) doesn't exactly count as a landslide. I know they got a fair old percentage of the votes at GE, but fortunately good old FPTP saved the day ( ). A PR based system would've returned a massive Tory/UKIP parliamentary majority...

"To be fair" or "to be frank".

Ah ok, ta.

Or, if used by Craster, "To be flatulent".

He's frank much of the time.

"Trump for President"...

Johnson plays the clown at least in part to make him seem harmless and entertaining, when he's actually nothing of the sort. Which is certainly something that can also be said for the likes of George W Bush. He was expensively educated and clearly not the imbecile he was made out to be, but people (within his party) liked him because of his public persona.

Did he refuse to take you to the prom or something?

George Bush?

Nah.

As for Boris, I think he's hideously incompetent, and in areas where he might show competence is generally a bit of a dick, but he gets away with it because people somehow ridiculously fall for his 'Oh look, I'm a bit silly' schtick. That's fine for a TV presenter; not for someone in charge of spending money in a time where budgets are being cut to ribbons for essential services.

But who cares about the poor and the needy when he can waste £39 million on a lift shaft to nowhere, £5.2 million on lobbying for his ridiculous airport that never had any chance of being built, several hundred thousand on second hand water cannons that are not even allowed to be used (and are a fucking idiotic idea anyway), £60 million (proposed - half London, half government) on a garden bridge that looks like an utter folly, was promised would not impact London finances at all and yet will likely cost the City £3.5 million a year in maintenance, the absurd sums on the (admittedly cool) cable car between the O2 and the North side of the river (cool, but useless, expensive, and the contract apparently allows the Emirates to veto a sale to anyone they don't like, such as Israeli businesses), over a million quid EACH on the unpopular new routemaster buses, selling advertising on the 'Boris Bikes' at an absurdly low level etc etc etc.

But he's funny LOL! Who cares that practically all of the above involved his business interests and friends?

*RAGE*

He would call you an oik. The world would laugh.

Are you secretly in love with him?

Quite. And that is why all civilised people should weep.

[citation needed]

Can't really argue with any of the specifics and to be clear, I'm not exactly a fan.

However, can't say I can remember some great Golden Mayoral Age of the Livingstone Era either (with or without the GLC), where all monies were efficiently and wisely spent. From what little I can recall and know about it as someone not living in London, the guy and his administration seemed pretty hopeless to be honest.

He must be doing some stuff right - London is booming like as never before.

Whilst I'm not sure that having had Celebrity Mayors for the past 15 years is a good or a bad thing for London, with the potential exception of Diane Abbott, we're looking likely to have a politician first and foremost from next year. I don't know if that is a good thing either.

My take would be to cautiously welcome such a development but I share your worries re (ahem) certain specific individuals who could be in the frame, Apod.

I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability.

I think he was a pretty awful man but the facts are that he used to fly jet fighters from aircraft carriers and then rose to become the president of the US, albeit in his father's footsteps. But even so I can't think that's really the career of any kind of imbecile. He was fucking hopeless at off the cuff public speaking, though.

He ran an oil company and a baseball team too.

I have no massive love for Livingstone either, though to be honest I know less about him and his time as mayor.

My main issue is that when other politicians have failings, are shown up as useless or corrupt, fuck things up eight ways from sunday, get humiliated, etc - they usually take a credibility hit (with the perplexing exception of Jeremy Hunt, who seems to get promoted more and more based on how badly he is doing). With Boris people just laugh at some inane quip and then vote for him. It's amazing how he has cultivated this image so he could probably get drunk and murder a load of orphans, but people would still support and vote for him because he apologised in a hilarious manner.

Hmm, again, don't massively disagree with much there (although you're being a bit harsh on Jeremy Hunt, but that's another story eh ).

I still say, though, that the likes of Boris Johnson et al are still surely streets ahead as compared to characters like Trump, Palin etc., despite their obvious failings and my own reservations as concerning them, too.

In other news, Jeremy Corbyn went to the same school as me!

You commie basturt!!1
CURIO COMMIE SKOOL

Poor Bobbyaro. He's a Commie too!

Poor Bobbyaro. He had to go to school with you.

Meh, so, Curio, Bobby... who is The Third Man? /looks at Doc G

In other news, apparently Labour have had to deal with 250,000 new members in 24 hours (that'll be a few quid in their coffers), too much for their website to handle before their deadline, which had to be extended

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... te-crashes

One assumes much of this influx will be in favour of Corbyn. Meanwhile, dark talk of an immediate MP-led ousting from the Blairites if Corbyn is elected, subverting the whole process before the ink's even dry.... interesting times ahead, popcorn at the ready! Schismtastic.

Other Dave. He attends some social events but doesn't have a forum login.



The Labour infighting is hilarious. Tony Blair is warning of apocalypse (presumably within 45 minutes) if Corbyn is appointed, and Campbell says that Anyone But Corbyn is better (because that clearly worked so well at the last election).

I remain saying that they should give it a go: get the conversation to be about actual alternatives to Tory policies instead of just diluted versions of the same things. If it all falls into a shit heap then fair enough, still plenty of time before 2020 to appoint Dan Jarvis, of whom the Conservatives would do well to be scared. He just screams 'PM Material'.

I've never even heard of him to be honest, but then I'd never heard of Corbyn either.... barrel-scraping, much?

I agree with Campbell. And Cavey. Corbyn would be a terrible choice. Lacks experience in policy making, lacks discipline and would not get it from the party and better men than he have failed to get Labour elected.

Shhh! I *so* want Corbyn to be elected, he'll be grate for them; Owen Jones, and others all say so.

From what I've seen, 'Corbynomics' is just awesome; a totally surreal read with plenty of belly laughs along the way.

Sorry, I know it isn't very nice of me but I'm just salivating at this prospect; I haven't had this much fun politically since September of last year.

The thought of Blair, Campbell and Mandelson (and even Kinnock) looking helplessly on, as their decades of graft in getting Labour to be electable being ripped to shreds and their entire party self-destructing as long pent up furies and frustrations of the Left in particular are finally allowed to gush forth, is simply delicious. Unmissable TV.

Of course, if he does get elected next election...

I daresay that I agree with much of where Corbyn comes from. I think he us the genuine article and 95+% of what he says I could get behind earnestly. However, as a way to get the Tories out of government it will not happen. I didn't agree with lots of what New Labour turned into, but that Li e of thinking is needed if the party will ever progress. Corbyn will stunt that.

I'm emigrating if that happens, seriously.

Cavey, yesterday.

Damn straight.

Indeed. I love the idea of Corbyn and my heart says yes, but my head says no.

This kind of thing - as admirable and commendable as it is - in the real world, is worrying.

"The genesis of one of these initiatives, a consultation paper on the future of the north of England launched at a rally earlier this month in Leeds, offers an intriguing glimpse into how a potential Corbyn leadership might formulate future Labour policy.

The document emerged from a discussion between Corbyn and his core campaign team, of which Trickett was a part, and gave rise to a simple suggestion: to email every registered supporter in the north and ask them for their ideas for a northern policy. They got 1,200 replies. These were filtered and compiled into the policy document which was then published, inviting further input from supporters and the wider public."

Source

Nice flintlock.

I say, give Corbyn a shot. It's the best part of 5 years until the next GE anyway, so having a serious opposition will be excellent for politics. You may say he's unelectable, but clearly he *is* electable, as he's an MP with 60% of the votes, in a London seat no less.

I'm no screaming lefty, but chasing the middle ground has failed. Time to mix it up, no?

Exactly. Labour don't need to win this year or even next. Instead of just repeating the failure of the last election, but with an even worse candidate, why not try something more in tune with the roots of the party?

If it doesn't work, then at least they tried. Corbyn clearly has something about him, as he has grown his majority well in his constituency, and has taken this leadership election by storm.

BTW - Dan Jarvis is a decorated military officer and MBE, who has been an MP for about 4 years. Was tipped to stand this time round but decided not to based on having a young family and it not being fair on them. He'll be Labour leader one day and quite possibly Prime Minister. It helps that he's very hard to attack personally, and is quite attractive (if you like that sort of thing).

I don't know, Cavey. I don't know that I could feel confident in the overall success of my own schadenfreude-seeking to actively want to see elected someone that I was vehemently opposed to (or felt to be a clown, or the worst possible choice for the opposition according to my own sensibilities).

Leaving off the reverse situation with the Conservatives, I'll expand it to a party that I disagree with even more, and say, I don't know, UKIP.

I can't imagine hoping gleefully that UKIP would elect as party head someone who I thought would be absolutely at odds with what was right for the country and humanist values, even more than the gurning clown that is Farage. Let's take the party racism for example. Lots of UKIP supporters and party members argue that the party is not racist. Whatever. But I cannot imagine, if seeking a new leader, cheering on the prospect of a guy that was an out and out racist and bigot, flat in the face of the public, chanting racist slogans because I thought that election to the head of the party would cause the party to slip into insignificance.

For a start, what if I was wrong, and actually it just gave the 'more racist people than you realise' a confidence to crawl out of their louse holes and actively support what was starting to be seen as one of the larger parties?

Secondly, it's still now providing this horrible man a larger stage, more coverage, greater media presence for both him and his twisted values. I couldn't sit back and laugh at the eventual demise of the party as it implodes, much as I'd like to see it disappear and leave nothing but a hole of failure in its wake, as I would be so worried that actually, this party of people who like to say they are 'not really' racist, and the supporters who like to think that they are 'not really' racist take in the increased rhetoric and more explicitly stated views that slowly creep into the not really racists until yes, they are a bit racist, or, you know racist, and this time actually admit it.

Looks like a cross between Phil Collins and Zardoz.

Hmm, I think I know what you mean, Meems, and it's with some shame on my part (as I've said, schadenfreude, not the most pleasant of human emotions and if I say so myself, not a characteristic I'd normally indulge in), that I do confess to wanting Corbyn to win because if he does, Labour are finished.

My justification, such as it is, is that I truly believe, rightly or wrongly, that Labour has been a disaster for the people of this country, most especially ordinary people like you, me, everyone else here. I'm not proposing to trot out all (or any) of my reasons for this earnestly held belief, people have heard enough of it these last 10 years, I think they know where I'm coming from by now.

Logically, therefore, if you believe something to be utterly malign in nature (even if only inadvertently so), you want to see it utterly destroyed, by whatever means that are available - including said destruction as wrought by itself (so much the better in fact; they do all the heavy lifting needed and no damaging fall out to deal with). I've long said that Labour utterly lacks a coherent political ideology; its front benches are devoid of talent; it has, for all intents and purposes been a vehicle, cynically used, to obtain political power, often on entirely false pretences (again, IMO). So then, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that they find themselves in a situation where even they don't know what they stand for anymore, for whom they stand for and, moreover, they have no credible options in terms of who's now going to lead them? Surely this whole, sorry picture is indicative and demonstrative of the utter mess they've got themselves into since the "New Labour" project, beyond anything that I or anyone could say, or needs to say. The evidence is before our very eyes.

Their options now range from 'terrible' to 'self destruct', and I reckon (and hope) they're going to choose the latter.

People will laugh when I say this, but as an old school "Patrician Tory" (even more left wing than a "One Nation Tory"; I'm like some relic from the Fifties in more ways than one ), but I actually believe that the best possible chance for 'ordinary people' are socially responsible right of centre politics.

Without wishing to sound patronising to anyone, I do believe that Labour voters and most politicians are well-meaning (unlike, say, UKIP and their hard core supporters IMO). Shit, most of my friends are Curio types ( ), I can't think offhand of one Tory among them. Lefties are very nice people!

At the end of the day though, being a lovely, well-meaning person butters no parsnips if you're wrong (and in a position to execute said wrong-headed policies). It's a tired old cliche I know, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions etc.

Don't know if this makes much sense.

Of course, if Labour really does shake itself to pieces and it fragments into multiple smaller parties, as I now fully expect it to do, it's possible that one or more of these remnants may well be worse than it was. Frankly, I'd take that chance, though, because even if that were the case, we'd be talking two or more entities starting from scratch, as opposed to a single, long-established party that could be elected into power within the short term. Thereby, allowing a Tory majority government to persist for a generation.

That's Phil Collins in that photo.
Unless you're saying that's what I actually look like lol.