As a sizeable chunk of the Shadow Cabinet have already resigned it will be interesting to see the final official make-up of 'Her Majesty's Opposition'. So the general aim of Labour for the next election appears to be end austerity by printing loadsamoney, nationalising everything that moves (or in the case of the railways, everything that doesn't move), allowing the trade unions to have the biggest say in the way the country is run and turning Britain into a pacifist nation with no armed forces or nuclear deterrent with totally open borders. Anyone who remembers the late 70s when Callaghan's government was printing money, inflation was over 25%, every public sector union were regularly striking and we were bailed out by the IMF will remember how dire things were at the time, Corbyn's ideas would be so much worse this time it really doesn't bare thinking about. I think Labour will end up fragmenting if Corbyn lasts more than two years, especially if, as I suspect, the Tories run into difficulties over Europe and an opportunity presents itself for a breakaway centre left group to galvanise support similar to the SDP in the 80s. It appears to be a bit of history repeating itself...
You didn't mention, blackouts, 3 day week, bread shortages, rubbish piling up in the streets how will Michael Foot and Neil kinnocks love child act if he has rebels within
The 3 day week was bought about by the banking collapse in the early 70's, caused by the previous labour government, much like the recent one under Brown. Coincidence???
The 3 day week was actually under Heath's Tory government due to the 1973 Miner's strike, it actually triggered the first of two general elections in 1974 which saw Harold Wilson back into No.10...
Correct, I didn't say under which government the 3 day week was introduced, I merely said WHY it was introduced.
Some interesting re writes of history here to 'prove' political points. It's as if the UK exists in a vacuum, international events like the US sub prime fiasco and 70s oil price hike have no impact on us. It was ever thus. I think this election will now force a final battle for the name 'Labour', which many seem very sentimental about (I don't think the general electorate are at all). Corbyn has more in common with Tony Benn (except intellect) than Michael Foot (who should never have been leader but was a far more substantial figure than Corbyn, or Benn, and managed to keep people like Denis Healey and Roy Hattersley engaged). Corbyn does offer an alternative vision, but it's not one supported by most of his fellow Labour MPs. More than half of the MPs that nominated him didn't vote for him. May be a genuine split, with Corbyn ending up leading a rump Labour Party which has less seats in the Commons than a 'New Labour' party and the SNP, and is wiped out at the next election. If people really wanted his brand of politics they would vote for the hard left parties like Socialist Workers Party and TUSC (which should now dissolve themselves, but I doubt they will). I suspect the new New Labour would be more comfortable in coalition with the Tories than with Corbyn Labour. Telling that Corbyn's first two acts as leader were to continue his 'protest politics' approach - speaking at a meeting in a pub (even though he doesn't drink) with the truly odious Len McCluskey, including a cringe making rendition of the Red Flag, and then hearing Billy Bragg sing it again at a refugee rally (Corbyn of course would never stop the cause of the refugee crisis because he can never sanction the use of force, he'd rather see ISIS victorious than have that on his conscience). Corbyn's attractiveness is his obvious sincerity, his antidote to the flashy suit PR/spin politics we have been saddled with for decades. The first sign of compromise or pragmatism his true supporters will turn against him, if he sticks to his (spiked, never to be fired) guns he is unelectable.
While I disagree with your're focus on the banking crisis although I disagree with it it's a bit being the Tories fault or really even labour's fault. (Also I assume since you blame the Tories for the crisis you will also be crediting them with the preceeding years of financial boom?) Key thing is crisis' happen. Next one might be collapse of eurozone (not our or labour's faulty), or Chinese economy falling into crisis and causing a contagion that spreads around the world. Not Labour's fault and not Tories fault. Real issue is that during the good years Labour still **** things up and handicap us for when the next crisis inevitably does hit. This would be far worse under Corbyn than it was over the con artists Brown and Blair who artificially inflated the public sector to bring about a consumer boom- would have been handy if we could have done this when the crisis hit in 08 but he'd already spent too much money. Been about 6 years since I last saw that speech by Hannan and its quite reassuring\satisfying to be proved right. You can't spend you're way out of debt. We've already over-spent so now need to aid the productive bit and keep a hold on the unproductive bit. Thank **** Tories came in and saved the economy because under Labour we really could have turned into something more like Greece. Corbyn has literally never run anything other than a local council planning committee he isn't fit to run a country
The Labour party could well split if Corbyn were to insist on all of his ideas becoming official party policy, but I believe there will be some compromise. Many Blairites will leave (good), but they will be replaced by the return of the many who abandoned Labour under Blair. What we could see is a left-of-centre, but pragmatic party capable of winning elections (whether under Corbyn or a successor). Many Corbyn policies are very popular - what's 'hard left' about advocating the re-nationalisation of the railways and utilities? This is something that should have been Labour policy under Corbyn's predecessors, were they not so scared of the right-wing media.
A flawless speech by Daniel Hannan - thanks for the reminder. With a referendum on the EU on the horizon, Hannan's next job is to warn the UK electorate that with an increasingly powerful Euro block within the Union, if the UK stays in the EU, it will have as much chance of influencing EU policy as King Canute had turning the waves back. If the French and the Germans decide that the financial centre of the EU will be Frankfurt and take steps to obstruct London's commercial progress, the Brits will just have to smile and take it...
Proved right? I don't think so. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/ http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
Are you being deliberately dishonest or do you genuinely not get it? Do you not see the confused message you are projecting? And because of that realise you are clearly missing something? Labour committed the country to over-spending. This would eventually have to be confronted but by another generation provided Gordon Brown was right and "boom and bust" really was over and the UK had sustainable growth year on year and with that the tax receipts to pay for this overspending and service this debt to manageable levels (well enough no politician could convince\ teach enough of the selfish and or dense beneficiaries of the medium to long term harm it was causing. So when the crisis hit and these tax receipts went into reverse and the economy nose dived before being stabilised and in a process of repair by the Tories. The gap between what we received and what we were already committed to spend by the Labour government in the bloated public sector, servicing debt etc widened hence the extra borrowing. So can you please make your mind up? Do you feel the Tories are spending too wildly on the welfare state, the public sector etc? And we therefore need more austerity? Or do you feel that there attempts at austerity to reign in this spending are not severe enough and we need more austerity to reduce the need for this borrowing even further? The point I believe I was proved right about is that as the Tories took steps to control the spending (clearly not that severley though- hence the borrowing figures in your previous post) and re-balance the economy and at the same time produce growth figures that have led the G7 in recent years. Remember Ed Ball's flat lining actions he mimed every chance as he encouraged yet more borrowing? The left wing media that dominate this country, likes of Channel 4, BBC and lTV (chairman is a massive labour donor) said you needed Keynesian spending . 7 years on and the Tories held firm and have returned the country to stable growth and out-perform expectations and most the Western World and all this despite the severle handicap imposed on them that Hannan pointed out so concsicely.
You tell me about it....I was put through the whole prep school and Public School system back in the late 60's and early seventies because my old man could afford it, and I hated every second of it. Maybe it is different now but a lot of it back then was about money, not how bright you were.
I'm merely pointing out that, despite all the painful (for most, but not all) austerity, debt has continued to grow under Cameron and Osborne. If your whole economic strategy is based around the need to reduce debt and it continues to grow, you have failed. The current economic growth is far from stable and is based on a housing bubble that could burst at any time. Keynesian spending could have produced more sustainable growth without the painful austerity.
Actually what mystifys me most about Jezza is that none of his three wives have been able to persuade him to wear a jacket that fits even semi properly. May seem like a petty point, but if you are going to buy and wear a jacket, even a cheap one, it is possible to buy one that looks ok for a bit. Dressing well is obviously not important to him, fair enough, but he has made it an point for discussion by claiming that he will never wear a tie (even at the Cenotaph, presumably) and describing them as 'fascist'. As he has never shown any sense of humour to my knowledge we can assume he wasn't joking.
Things are catching on here in Oz. Were about to have a leadership spill with Malcolm Turnbell looking to punt Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Abbott has always look & sounded like a complete dork but now over a period of time, he's proved that he really is incompetent and just refuses to listen. Turnbell is easily the better option for us or even Morrison is probably better again. Never a dull moment in politics! Knives at twenty paces ............................ Order, order! ................ would the member for Fadden kindly remove himself at once. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...to-challenge-tony-abbott-20150914-gjm74c.html
It suits his style to look as poor as possible. I don't know a lot about the bloke but he probably comes from a middle class family and he's obviously making a decent wage in his position. Better to come across as a slightly scraggy man of the people though.
