The Politics Thread

[Beefheart]

The Labour leadership competition is very much a tallest dwarf type competition. Only hope for them is if they can find someone better than any of them before 2020.

[Hoboh]

Just as an aside, my CEO earns 84x what I do...

Ah! but does he only work 30 mins a day?

[Hoboh]

Germany's economic prowess under the euro should not be over-estimated.

One of the drivers behind its "fiscal fetishism" is a deep insecurity about the country's longer term economic prospects. Germany is one of the fastest ageing economies in the world, in need of mass immigration, more women in the labour force and a substantial boost to its birth-rate.

Hence the 'free movement'.

Anyone who still believes after all that's been going on that the EU is not 'all about the Germans', should stay in their parallel world.

[thebish]

The Labour leadership competition is very much a tallest dwarf type competition. Only hope for them is if they can find someone better than any of them before 2020.

aye - it is that...

the whole UK political scene depresses me - not least after hearing Blair's intervention today.

I get that a party needs to be in power so that it can make a change - BUT - and it's a pretty big BUT...

I suspect this has meant that the mainstream parties are now all essentially the same thing - new labour/tory/lib-dem - aside from some made-up differences - they are all offering essentially the same prospectus.

it seems that the PURPOSE of political parties is now "to be appealing and get elected" - and this drives them all into the same fairly narrow middle-ground territory - and it is a competition to see who can be least offensive to the most...

I can't help but feel that this attitude robs the electorate of a genuine choice... there is no REAL choice - they are all essentially the same but with different rosettes...

cameron and milliband and Clegg were not ideological enemies however much they pretended to be - there was hardly a fag-paper between them...

I suspect this is why UKIP seemed so attractive to so many - at last there was a party that said different things and appeared to actually believe what they were saying!

if the cost of getting Labour or the Lib Dems elected is to turn them into an alternative Tory party - then what's the point?

[Beefheart]

It's a symptom of the electoral system. You can't say what you really believe in because it might cost you a few hundred votes in a few tory/labour marginals that will cost you the whole election. Leads to that race to the centre ground you mentioned and leaves people without any real choice. Of course it's 'convenient' which is for some reason the most important aspect of a democracy.

[Prufrock]

I'm not having that argument. None of them are closet Tories. Even the most "right-wing" of them in Kendall has been espousing Keynsian economics in running a surplus in the good years to fund public spending projects in the bad - that's the opposite of austerity! She's against the swingeing nature of the cuts to public services, she's against the raising of the inheritance tax threshold and she critisised Osbourne's "living wage" for not being a living wage particularly when he cut tax credits at the same time. And she's the nearest to them. Theses aren't minor quibbles that don't make a difference. It's not ideologically sexy though.

Paul Brannan MEP said this the other when backing Kendal (as he feels she's the only one electable):

"Iraq aside - and ‘yes’ it was a massive issue - the Labour Government of 1997 – 2010 is the best thing that has happened to this country and in its people in my adult lifetime.
If you are a Labour Party member or supporter and you think otherwise your are either deranged or an opposition purist of no more use to a person living in poverty than the complete works of Karl Marx bound in leather."

Of course there are no ideological battles anymore, but that's because communists don't get elected. That battle has been settled. Corbyn is the complete works of Karl Marx bound in leather. It doesn't matter how much he cares about social justice, there's no way he's even becoming PM and so as Labour Leader he'd achieve the square root of f*ck all, for all that I admire that he cares (and think he is great to have around as a back-bench MP). There's a self-indulgent streak on the left in that folk would rather be ideologically consistent in opposition than make some compromises and actually make the difference we spend all our time claiming to want to make.

Being electable is the sine qua non for any leader. If not, we might as well pack up and go home. All of the other three are, to some extent electable. Corbyn is not.

[thebish]

Being electable is the sine qua non for any leader. If not, we might as well pack up and go home. All of the other three are, to some extent electable. Corbyn is not.

aye - but, as I said, if (to make yourself electable) you clone yourself into a copy of the last lot to get elected - then you might as well have the last lot...

UK politics is a sham (policy wise)

Kendall is a tory (in all but name)
Burnham is an accent looking for summat to really believe
Cooper is a drippy mess
Corbyn is a madman - and in being so - doesn't care if what he believes is unpopular (I'm not so sure it will always be so)

all of them would lead the labour party to disaster at the next election

but at least Corbyn would provide an actual apposition!

[Prufrock]

I thought you were bright enough not to fall for this "Kendall is a Tory" bollocks!

In 1992 John Major's Conservatives received more votes than any political party ever had and ever has. 5 years later after tearing itself apart over Europe it lost to a Labour landslide.

I think too much damage has been done for any of the candidates to win in 2020 without the Tories imploding, but it's not like that doesn't happen. Even so there's still no-one anyone's sticking Jeremy Corbyn in number 10. The other three, however uninspiring they might be, at least have a chance. Whatever anyone says about Tony Blair, he made far more of a difference to peoples lives by governing than Corbyn ever has by being "right" in opposition.

It's self-indulgent. The people we claim to care about couldn't give a toss if Kendall doesn't know the words to The Internationale if she can win and increase their pay. The paying of a living wage is not "policy sham". That counts.

[thebish]

I thought you were bright enough not to fall for this "Kendall is a Tory" bollocks!

I thought you were bright enough not to fall for this "New Labour is not Tory-lite" bollox!

[Prufrock]

It depends what you mean by Tory-lite. There are plenty Tory ideologues who think the centre ground is naff. You're right that everyone chases it, but that's because, by definition, it's where most people are. That's democracy. There's still plenty difference in there. The difference between austerity and a Keynsian approach to economics is huge. A Labour govt that committed to public spending in the bad years (that's far less Tory than "Red Ed" by the way).

There are things Liz Kendall isn't "left" enough on for my politics, by she's still far more committed to fair pay, to the cuts been fairly spread, to public services being protected than David Cameron is. So yes, there is a choice, and it's one that counts. I'd rather have her in charge than Cameron (or Osbourne or Johnson) so, Tory-lite or not, I'd rather she were in charge. I'd rather compromise some things to actually change lives rather than become the protest party for people who think all business is inherently evil.

[Lord Kangana]

Of course, what we could all more rationally conclude is that it doesn't matter what they do, as given enough time the Tories will manage to piss enough people off enough anyway that they'll vote in large enough numbers for whoever is the largest opposition.

Tories will probably win the next election, by a slightly larger majority, then lose 2025 because the long term effects of their policies will be much in evidence (little prediction, the size of unpaid student debt in 10 years will probably be larger than the whole economy, and old age care/pensions/NHS will be huge political footballs for the baby boomers when they realise that they've broken the social contract by making the younger generation both pay for their pensions and pay for themselves, which they never had to).

[Beefheart]

It depends what you mean by Tory-lite. There are plenty Tory ideologues who think the centre ground is naff. You're right that everyone chases it, but that's because, by definition, it's where most people are. That's democracy. There's still plenty difference in there. The difference between austerity and a Keynsian approach to economics is huge. A Labour govt that committed to public spending in the bad years (that's far less Tory than "Red Ed" by the way).

There are things Liz Kendall isn't "left" enough on for my politics, by she's still far more committed to fair pay, to the cuts been fairly spread, to public services being protected than David Cameron is. So yes, there is a choice, and it's one that counts. I'd rather have her in charge than Cameron (or Osbourne or Johnson) so, Tory-lite or not, I'd rather she were in charge. I'd rather compromise some things to actually change lives rather than become the protest party for people who think all business is inherently evil.

It's fine to take a Keynesian approach, but in doing so you are supposed to run a surplus during the boom years. Otherwise it's the economic equivalent of having your cake and eating it.

[Prufrock]

It depends what you mean by Tory-lite. There are plenty Tory ideologues who think the centre ground is naff. You're right that everyone chases it, but that's because, by definition, it's where most people are. That's democracy. There's still plenty difference in there. The difference between austerity and a Keynsian approach to economics is huge. A Labour govt that committed to public spending in the bad years (that's far less Tory than "Red Ed" by the way).

There are things Liz Kendall isn't "left" enough on for my politics, by she's still far more committed to fair pay, to the cuts been fairly spread, to public services being protected than David Cameron is. So yes, there is a choice, and it's one that counts. I'd rather have her in charge than Cameron (or Osbourne or Johnson) so, Tory-lite or not, I'd rather she were in charge. I'd rather compromise some things to actually change lives rather than become the protest party for people who think all business is inherently evil.

It's fine to take a Keynesian approach, but in doing so you are supposed to run a surplus during the boom years. Otherwise it's the economic equivalent of having your cake and eating it.

That's what Kendall has been saying. When Osbourne came out with his ridiculous idea to legally compel future governments to always run a surplus, Kendall said that she supported the idea of running a surplus in the good years. Because Osbourne had mentioned running a surplus, and she had mentioned running a surplus, she was suddenly a "Tory" despite their reasons for running it being hugely different.

[Hoboh]

I'm not having that argument. None of them are closet Tories. Even the most "right-wing" of them in Kendall has been espousing Keynsian economics in running a surplus in the good years to fund public spending projects in the bad - that's the opposite of austerity! She's against the swingeing nature of the cuts to public services, she's against the raising of the inheritance tax threshold and she critisised Osbourne's "living wage" for not being a living wage particularly when he cut tax credits at the same time. And she's the nearest to them. and she's the one Pru has the hots for Theses aren't minor quibbles that don't make a difference. It's not ideologically sexy though.

Paul Brannan MEP said this the other when backing Kendal (as he feels she's the only one electable):

"Iraq aside - and ‘yes’ it was a massive issue - the Labour Government of 1997 – 2010 is the best thing that has happened to this country and in its people in my adult lifetime.
If you are a Labour Party member or supporter and you think otherwise your are either deranged or an opposition purist of no more use to a person living in poverty than the complete works of Karl Marx bound in leather."

Of course there are no ideological battles anymore, but that's because communists don't get elected. That battle has been settled. Corbyn is the complete works of Karl Marx bound in leather. It doesn't matter how much he cares about social justice, there's no way he's even becoming PM and so as Labour Leader he'd achieve the square root of f*ck all, for all that I admire that he cares (and think he is great to have around as a back-bench MP). There's a self-indulgent streak on the left in that folk would rather be ideologically consistent in opposition than make some compromises and actually make the difference we spend all our time claiming to want to make.

Being electable is the sine qua non for any leader. If not, we might as well pack up and go home. All of the other three are, to some extent electable. Corbyn is not.

[Hoboh]

“Paying tax is not a burden,” Corbyn said. “It is the subscription we pay to live in a civilised society. A collective payment we all make for the collective goods we all benefit from: schools, hospitals, libraries, street lights, pensions, the list is endless.

Oh goody, thank you Mr Corbyn. Does that mean we can finally tell all the feckless baby breeding, never worked, Stella swigging chavs to fcuk off they aren't entitled to 'owt? Or should we pack them off to ISIS so we can thump them with taxpayer funded munitions?

[Lord Kangana]

Which neatly sums up what we're up against.

[Prufrock]

I'm not having that argument. None of them are closet Tories. Even the most "right-wing" of them in Kendall has been espousing Keynsian economics in running a surplus in the good years to fund public spending projects in the bad - that's the opposite of austerity! She's against the swingeing nature of the cuts to public services, she's against the raising of the inheritance tax threshold and she critisised Osbourne's "living wage" for not being a living wage particularly when he cut tax credits at the same time. And she's the nearest to them. and she's the one Pru has the hots for Theses aren't minor quibbles that don't make a difference. It's not ideologically sexy though.

Paul Brannan MEP said this the other when backing Kendal (as he feels she's the only one electable):

"Iraq aside - and ‘yes’ it was a massive issue - the Labour Government of 1997 – 2010 is the best thing that has happened to this country and in its people in my adult lifetime.
If you are a Labour Party member or supporter and you think otherwise your are either deranged or an opposition purist of no more use to a person living in poverty than the complete works of Karl Marx bound in leather."

Of course there are no ideological battles anymore, but that's because communists don't get elected. That battle has been settled. Corbyn is the complete works of Karl Marx bound in leather. It doesn't matter how much he cares about social justice, there's no way he's even becoming PM and so as Labour Leader he'd achieve the square root of f*ck all, for all that I admire that he cares (and think he is great to have around as a back-bench MP). There's a self-indulgent streak on the left in that folk would rather be ideologically consistent in opposition than make some compromises and actually make the difference we spend all our time claiming to want to make.

Being electable is the sine qua non for any leader. If not, we might as well pack up and go home. All of the other three are, to some extent electable. Corbyn is not.

Ha!

She will be my pick for leader. Of all of them, Corbyn at his best is the one who gets the juices going most as it were, but a) I think when he's wrong he's disastrously wrong and b) even if I didn't I think that, he's fundamentally unelectable which means he's out.

I think Kendall is the far more likely of the other three to win. I can't stand Burnham who seems to want to be in charge but doesn't seem to know why. And whilst I quite like Cooper, she's too close to the hated Ed Balls to win.

Plus Kendall is the only one who seems to get what we have to do to win: win over middle class English voters who like our social policies but don't trust us on the economy.

[thebish]

There are things Liz Kendall isn't "left" enough on for my politics, by she's still far more committed to fair pay, to the cuts been fairly spread, to public services being protected than David Cameron is. So yes, there is a choice, and it's one that counts. I'd rather have her in charge than Cameron (or Osbourne or Johnson) so, Tory-lite or not, I'd rather she were in charge. I'd rather compromise some things to actually change lives rather than become the protest party for people who think all business is inherently evil.

yes - i'd rather her than cameron - but that'd be largely tribal feeling...

you SAY she is committed to fair pay, to the cuts been fairly spread, to public services being protected... but until I hear specifics - that is just vague, meaningless bollox... she was repeatedly asked what she would cut - and she repeatedly refused to answer.. why?? how would she "protect public services" - what does that actually mean? which ones? fair pay - what does that mean and what changes to legislation would she actually make?

[Hoboh]

Which neatly sums up what we're up against.

Look I fail to see what the problem is with folk like you?
If you feel so bad about paying for all the pond life that seems to have multiplied many, many, times in the last few generations under both the 'left' and 'right' I am quite sure there is a nice little charity box with the buy a six pack for a chav somewhere.
What really pisses me and a lot of others off is what right do you think you have to tell us we have to pay for them too?
Labour arsed about with being Multi-Culti, now we have towns within towns, people who think more of conflict overseas and over stretch and add massive cost to our security bill.
There are estates where benefits are the life style, kids are taught to hate the law, school and education is a waste of time, they are 'entitled' to anything just by nature of their mothers wide open legs on a drunken night out, and you expect us to pay for all this?
Labour will be a long time in the wilderness if this is the case!

[Prufrock]

There are things Liz Kendall isn't "left" enough on for my politics, by she's still far more committed to fair pay, to the cuts been fairly spread, to public services being protected than David Cameron is. So yes, there is a choice, and it's one that counts. I'd rather have her in charge than Cameron (or Osbourne or Johnson) so, Tory-lite or not, I'd rather she were in charge. I'd rather compromise some things to actually change lives rather than become the protest party for people who think all business is inherently evil.

yes - i'd rather her than cameron - but that'd be largely tribal feeling...

you SAY she is committed to fair pay, to the cuts been fairly spread, to public services being protected... but until I hear specifics - that is just vague, meaningless bollox... she was repeatedly asked what she would cut - and she repeatedly refused to answer.. why?? how would she "protect public services" - what does that actually mean? which ones? fair pay - what does that mean and what changes to legislation would she actually make?

How on earth can anyone say five years out? You don't know what will be left to protect. Or what state the economy will be in to know whether it'll be boom time or not.

I'd rather her than Cameron because a) what she says (things like this: http://labourlist.org/2015/07/we-must-o ... s-kendall/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and b) her voting record which is the only chance she's had so far to back up what she says.