The Labour Party - The Big Discussion

[DynamicSpirit]

DarloRich - what's missing from the Labour right wing is an alternative. The idea that Corbyn would not just win but win a landslide was hilarious until it became a certainty. Burnham would have won until he chose to abstain on the welfare cuts. I keep hearing that Corbyn is unelectable - perhaps. But we know that New Labour is unelectable. We know that trying to be technocrat administrators of Torynomics is unelectable. So unless you propose something that isn't Continuity New Labour what is your counter-proposal?

I don't think we do know that New Labour is unelectable. Since Tony Blair left office, I don't think there's been an election that Labour has fought on a 'New Labour' platform (I guess you could argue about the couple of years when Gordon Brown was PM, but for much of that time Labour was unpopular for other reasons), so there's no recent data on which to decide.

Personally, I wouldn't really want to go back to New Labour (I think the New Labour years achieved a lot for the UK but also had many failings). I think in terms of economics, Corbyn and McDonnell are actually fairly close to what needs to be done. But I would like to see less ideology and more focus on 'what works'. And I'd also like to see the rhetoric geared much more towards the idea that you Govern for the sake of everyone, no matter how rich or how poor. And - most importantly - I'd like to see more evidence of clear, decisive, leadership, and more willingness to engage with the media.

 

[southern442]

:roll: Don't forget to send your tribunal round to my house. Odd that it is the people that are citicised the most who seem to do the most to support the party. I am more than happy to be left wing but I am not keen to have another 18 years in opposition. Many of you seem to prefer that.........

I'm not saying that people who criticize Corbyn should leave the party. That is the opposite of democracy. Corbyn should take criticism from the party as it will obviously help him become better at his job. (obviously there is criticism of him that should be ignored, such as the worthless gossip usually printed by the Evening Standard and the Mail etc.) What I do have a problem with is Blairites in the party who are essentially right-wing. Labour is a centre-left party, so people with right-wing views should not be in the party. From recent electoral performance we have seen that the Blairites of the party are pulling the party down (Ed Milliband, for example, never challenged austerity and agreed with a lot of what Cameron said) and so they have become the dead weight of the party, and are bringing the popularity of the party down, so naturally I think that people who's principles go against the very idea of the Labour party (and are performing badly anyway) should go to a party that supports their ideals more.

You don't think that Sadiq Khan's long standing defense of humans rights through his legal career might and his chairmanship of Liberty might have had something to do with his view on detention without trial? It could have been his underlying leftism of course............

I'm not sure what you are trying to respond to here. I made the point that Sadiq Khan is not a Blairite, in response to a previous comment. What are you trying to argue against?

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm not saying that people who criticize Corbyn should leave the party. That is the opposite of democracy. Corbyn should take criticism from the party as it will obviously help him become better at his job. (obviously there is criticism of him that should be ignored, such as the worthless gossip usually printed by the Evening Standard and the Mail etc.) What I do have a problem with is Blairites in the party who are essentially right-wing. Labour is a centre-left party, so people with right-wing views should not be in the party. From recent electoral performance we have seen that the Blairites of the party are pulling the party down (Ed Milliband, for example, never challenged austerity and agreed with a lot of what Cameron said) and so they have become the dead weight of the party, and are bringing the popularity of the party down, so naturally I think that people who's principles go against the very idea of the Labour party (and are performing badly anyway) should go to a party that supports their ideals more.

For what's its worth I've never met a member of the Labour party who's ideals were not social justice for everyone and the idea that everyone feels that they should aspire to something. Some people seem to think that because people want to aspire to be successful / make money / own property that they should not be members of the Labour party. Even if that includes the working class!

And I'll you who's bringing the popularity of the party down and that's Jeremy Corbyn. People including yourself need to realise that the majority of voters (at least in my experience) vote for the leader, not the party. That, along with allowing the Tories to blame the collapse of the banks on the Labour party were the two key reasons why we lost the election.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And where is this idea that they're just going to try and print money to spend coming from?

A quick search on Google shows that's exactly what Jeremy Corbyn plans to do if he is elected Prime Minister in order to pay for infrastructure projects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You dismissed my post about borrowing to invest as "nothing new".

Yes I did for the very reason that it was basically taken out of the A Level text books that I was reading 34 years a go! That's why in my mind it was nothing new.

What's the Continuity New Labour proposal for driving growth and investment?

From what I can see borrowing money as opposed to printing it. Please lets not go back to the days of high inflation and interest rates.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

@RichmondCommu - borrowing is printing is borrowing. We have a fractional reserve banking system. Our banks create money every day. We recently tripled tuition fees and had the government pay it up front - created new money, handed it to the banks who then have a new "asset" on their balance sheets to make them look more solvent.

And again, central and commercial banks have flooded the world with new money and inflation has gone to flat or negative - the old hyperinflation model isn't there because the economic system is broken.

And FWIW Yvette Cooper made a huge song and dance during her election campaign that borrowing money for investment was highly irresponsible - so I believe that the alternative proposal is "don't". Which slows the economy even more and brakes/breaks the system even more.

To bring this back in topic to the police and crime commissioners, this lunatic "slash everytbing" approach means my local force is broke. We have 3 PCs to cover a large area during the day, closed police stations, a real withdrawal in visible policing. The Tory candidate berated the Labour PCC despite the large cuts made by his government to our budget - twice the national average - and the even larger cuts proposed. The PCC is a stupid job that politicises the police and needs to be abolished.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[LateThanNever]

@RichmondCommu - borrowing is printing is borrowing. We have a fractional reserve banking system. Our banks create money every day. We recently tripled tuition fees and had the government pay it up front - created new money, handed it to the banks who then have a new "asset" on their balance sheets to make them look more solvent.

And again, central and commercial banks have flooded the world with new money and inflation has gone to flat or negative - the old hyperinflation model isn't there because the economic system is broken.

And FWIW Yvette Cooper made a huge song and dance during her election campaign that borrowing money for investment was highly irresponsible - so I believe that the alternative proposal is "don't". Which slows the economy even more and brakes/breaks the system even more.

To bring this back in topic to the police and crime commissioners, this lunatic "slash everytbing" approach means my local force is broke. We have 3 PCs to cover a large area during the day, closed police stations, a real withdrawal in visible policing. The Tory candidate berated the Labour PCC despite the large cuts made by his government to our budget - twice the national average - and the even larger cuts proposed. The PCC is a stupid job that politicises the police and needs to be abolished.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Quite agree with this.
The bankers have captured our politicians - just look at how many of them end up working for banks. Corbyn and McDonnell see through the banking sham. Money is issued by the government but they have privatised and contracted out most (97%) of the new money creation to the private banks - except Quantitative Easing which was just printing money but only for the use of the banks.
The sooner people realise that banks create money out of thin air because our democracy permits them to, that our democracy can permit them to do it less or more or only in certain ways or maybe the same democracy will decide to bypass the banks and invest directly. Rent extraction serves only to enrich the bankers and make the people poorer.
How Labour succeeds in getting this message across is the difficult bit. It shouldn't be as difficult as they seem to find it, because it is really quite liberating. Government can and should work for the good of society - Britain's sovereign currency is simply the government's method of distributing its resources. Certainly if the message doesn't get across then some of us, and certainly our children and grandchildren are going to be unecessarily impoverished through loans, interest payments and other nefarious and debillitating forms of rent extraction.

 

[tbtc]

I think that part of the problem here is that Social Media has allowed political enthusiasts to live in a Safe Space where they aren't confronted by people who disagree with them, they get the news that they want to hear from their echo chamber without having to deal with compromise/ mainstream opinion/ provocation.

So the left spends a lot of time navel gazing - worrying about CND/ Hamas/ gender neutral bathrooms/ deselecting Labour MPs who aren't not ideologically pure enough... whilst the rest of the country worries about how to pay it's mortgage/ zero hours contracts/ problems with the NHS/ acadamisation of schools/ immigration... all of which are things that Labour isn't shouting about an alternative to.

We were here in the '80s, when the comfort zone of Militant (etc) was more appealing than trying to win mainstream votes. We are making the same mistake again.

Only some council seats were up for election so the result is not really representative of the country as a whole. Really you can come up with factually based arguments to justify anything you want following last Thursday's elections. For instance, you can say the Lib Dems did well as they gained control of a council and they gained more seats than any other party. If you're writing an article for a local Huddersfield paper you could argue the Lib Dems did badly as they only have half the number of seats they had on Kirkless Council before the Conservative and Lib Dem Coalition government was formed

I agree that you can argue the results to suit your outlook (given the way that they took place in some areas), but I think that a comparison with the last time that most of those seats came up for re-election is a reasonable benchmark - and Corbyn is doing no better than Miliband on that definition - I think he's doing worse in fact.

So for all the Brave New World optimism, I think he needed to do a lot better in 2016 if he wanted to stop a Tory majority in 2020.

Both times Livingstone lost to Johnson he gained more second choice votes than Johnson, which suggests voters of other parties would rather go the left than the right even if their preference is the centre.

That may be true, but the result was that Livingston lost. Twice.

Khan won the kind of voters who'd rejected Ken. I'd rather have a winner like Khan - if that means selling out a little then that's a price I'm happy to pay - I'll be honest about that.

You can't do much in football if you don't have the ball. You can't do much in politics if you don't appeal to swing voters.

On a more general point, not particularly directed at you: I understand why Conservatives would want to belittle or ignore the good things that happened during the Blair years - after all, it's usually politically in one's interest to belittle what the opposing party does. But I really don't understand why so many people on the left - Labour party members even - wish to do so, when all you achieve in the process (apart from misrepresenting history) is to help the Conservatives.

True.

It's not the best counter-argument, but in terms of seats lost, they did better than the Tories. (Whilst Labour's election performance wasn't a complete failure, it's not worth having a celebration over, I must say.)

Labour did worse than when the same seats were last up for re-election under Miliband - and we know how badly that worked out in the end.

Governments expect to lose council seats in the early years of a Parliament - credible Opposition shouldn't be losing seats.

About the only source of pride in terms of Labour results since Corbyn taking over was that they didn't lose a safe Labour seat at a by-election (in Oldham) - that shows how low the bar has been set in terms of expectation. Depressing stuff.

Both parties have been in problems recently, but the Labour party's problems have been (or at least have been made out to be) more significant than the Tories. There is nothing to suggest Labour won't bounce back before 2020, especially as Labour are almost completely united behind staying in the EU, and the Conservatives will be in a bit of a grumble whichever way the country votes

There is a lot to suggest Labour won't bounce back before 2020 - namely their failure to land a punch on a Government that should be reeling from splits over Europe/ disastrous handling of Junior Doctors/ parents and teachers rebelling over planned education changes/ an economy still struggling after six years of a Tory chancellor...

...if Labour can't make decent gains at this stage in the electoral cycle then they'll struggle when up against a new Tory leader in 2020 (once the wounds of the Euro referendum have had a chance to heal).

Getting rid of members of a party that disagree with what a party stands for (and more or less agree with what another party does stand for) doesn't seem like too bad of an idea to me, especially as they have been the dead weight of elections so far

So anyone who isn't united behind the leader should be got rid of?

Tell me, did anyone get rid of people like Corbyn who weren't united behind Blair? Oh, sorry, that was different, it was okay for him to be the biggest rebel in the Labour Party because he's A Good Guy, but not that Corbyn is the leader then we should de-select any MPs who don't slavishly toe the party line that he has decreed?

For a party struggling to win over neutral/ swing/ floating voters to try to ditch members of their own party... you don't see this as slightly futile?

There is a difference between being moderate and being Blairite. Sadiq Khan isn't a hard lefty (to be honest Jeremy Corbyn isn't that far left either) and this is to be expected as Labour are a centre-left party, something that Rupert Murdoch seems to have made everyone forget about. And you can't call Khan Blairite at all, especially as "in 2005, as a new MP, [he] voted against Labour’s proposal to hold terrorism suspects for 90 days without charge" and "made an enemy out of Blair" (source here). This tells me that a lot of people are supporting a Labour figure who was an opponent of Blair and it also tells me that they support a Labour party that has moved on from him.

Wasn't Khan a whip under Blair (when Corbyn was one of the troublemaking rebels that he had to try to "manage")?

Regardless, London voted for Khan by a large majority. London rejected Livingston twice. Do you want to learn lessons from the past?

 

[Railops]

At PMQ's today Corbyn wished David Attenborough a happy birthday but snubbed the new London mayor completely. Khan can't stand Corbyn and the feeling seems to be mutual.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not saying that people who criticize Corbyn should leave the party. That is the opposite of democracy. Corbyn should take criticism from the party as it will obviously help him become better at his job. (obviously there is criticism of him that should be ignored, such as the worthless gossip usually printed by the Evening Standard and the Mail etc.) What I do have a problem with is Blairites in the party who are essentially right-wing. Labour is a centre-left party, so people with right-wing views should not be in the party. From recent electoral performance we have seen that the Blairites of the party are pulling the party down (Ed Milliband, for example, never challenged austerity and agreed with a lot of what Cameron said) and so they have become the dead weight of the party, and are bringing the popularity of the party down, so naturally I think that people who's principles go against the very idea of the Labour party (and are performing badly anyway) should go to a party that supports their ideals more.

But the point you miss is that we have to occupy the centre ground to win the election. The country rejected a moderate leftist/social justice policy agenda as presented by Ed Milliband.

The acquiescence with the austerity agenda was ( is?) driven by a need to combat the narrative that the financial problems of our country are Labour's fault. We lost control of that narrative to the Tories and are still suffering. I don't agree with it but understand why the descion was taken.

Momentum and others want us to lurch ever leftwards. It wont win us the support we need. Without wider support we wont win the election.

Which right wingers should be removed from the party? Who decides on this point? Is there a chart of appropriate answers to questions to determine those who should be deleted?

I'm not sure what you are trying to respond to here. I made the point that Sadiq Khan is not a Blairite, in response to a previous comment. What are you trying to argue against?

You suggest Khan isn't a "Blairist" because he voted against detention without trial. I suggest he voted against detention without trail on the basis of his long standing interest in human rights. Would you or I vote for such a legislation? I know I wouldn't unless there were utterly compelling reasons.

.....

I agree with all of the points made above by TBTC

 

[LateThanNever]

I think that part of the problem here is that Social Media has allowed political enthusiasts to live in a Safe Space where they aren't confronted by people who disagree with them, they get the news that they want to hear from their echo chamber without having to deal with compromise/ mainstream opinion/ provocation.

So the left spends a lot of time navel gazing - worrying about CND/ Hamas/ gender neutral bathrooms/ deselecting Labour MPs who aren't not ideologically pure enough... whilst the rest of the country worries about how to pay it's mortgage/ zero hours contracts/ problems with the NHS/ acadamisation of schools/ immigration... all of which are things that Labour isn't shouting about an alternative to.

This is very true. But that's why getting accross how money is created is so important. Once you realise that you don't have to pay bankers squillions because otherwise they won't lend you money, you can send them packing. Then spend our money on getting rid of the disgrace of foodbanks, the disastrous rise in homelessness, spending on getting rid of PFI which is breaking schools and the health service. And being straight that Brown shouldn't have ever promoted PFI.

There is also the problem of private debt, which is another drain on much family income. The Office of Budget Responsibilty calculates that because Osborne is cutting government spending we will all have to borrow more to ensure the economy expands. Labour ought to be coming out of the gender neutral bathroom and shouting from the rooftops about this crazy idea.

In my opinion alerting people to the origin of money, and spending publicly so we don't have to individually, are vital keys to getting elected. Because once us little people start spending the economy will start moving. The people who have their trusts in Panama aren't spending and do rock all for the UK economy.

In passing I'd also say that deducing the colour of the next government on the basis of local council results is a game. I, for one (and I'm not alone) rarely vote for the same party in both local and national elections!

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Left/Right keeps being mentioned. In current politics all are shades of right. This "moderate" Tory government is way to the right of Thatcher. David Owen described the centre - right SDP as significantly to the left as the supposedly "hard right" Corbyn.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

So anyone who isn't united behind the leader should be got rid of?

Tell me, did anyone get rid of people like Corbyn who weren't united behind Blair? Oh, sorry, that was different, it was okay for him to be the biggest rebel in the Labour Party because he's A Good Guy, but not that Corbyn is the leader then we should de-select any MPs who don't slavishly toe the party line that he has decreed?


London rejected Livingston twice. Do you want to learn lessons from the past?

To be honest, I don't really think that Blair would have given it much thought. With such a majority, a few on the left of the party could be easily disregarded and the media were more than happy to give them the 'loony leftie' tag...job done!

Also London voted Livingstone in twice, lest we forget!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Cameron's "dead cat on the table" debating style makes it extremely difficult to land meaningful punches on him. If you get too close to managing it he (or his party) just does or says something absolutely outrageous and suddenly the debate has completely changed and moved on. You saw that with tax credit changes: Labour were gaining meaningful traction and, would you believe it, suddenly Iain Duncan-Smith magically develops a conscience and has a flounce of quite epic proportions. Suddenly everyone is talking about IDS' dead cat and Labour's traction is lost.

Cameron's biggest success politically has been in moving the centre ground far to the right. "Communist Corbyn" is not really much further to the left than the late John Smith was in the early 90s; Miliband's "centre-left social justice" was just a re-hash of Blair's mid-90s third way, yet he was labelled "Red Ed". People are comparing Momentum to Militant, as though they're all whacko communist crazies, but if you look at what Momentum are saying it isn't really very controversial: no to privatisation, no to selling off the NHS, no to academies. It's stuff the SDP were saying in the 80s. Derek Hatton it ain't.

Labour's biggest challenge is getting the pendulum back away from the (economic) far-right, where it is at the minute. That's a real challenge with even supposedly "left wing" media like the Guardian essentially following an agenda that would have been described at centre-right 15 years ago.

 

[Harbornite]

I guessed you missed the list of domestic achievements above and the 3 election victories then. Which of those should we not be proud of?

You raised some good points, I had forgotten about quite a few of those pieces of legislation. He also helped out in Sierra Leone by sending in the Paras. However, can you justify the 24 hour drinking law and the intervention in Iraq? It will be interesting to see what the Chilcot report says about the latter.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You raised some good points, I had forgotten about quite a few of those pieces of legislation. He also helped out in Sierra Leone by sending in the Paras. However, can you justify the 24 hour drinking law and the intervention in Iraq? It will be interesting to see what the Chilcot report says about the latter.

Are you seriously proposing we repeal the 24 hour drinking law?

 

[Tetchytyke]

For people who've not seen it, Adam Curtis' piece from 2014 Wipe on "non-linear warfare" was extremely interesting. It mostly talked about how Russia are revolutionising the propaganda war, but you can see many of the same tactics being used by Crosby and the Conservatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOY4Ka-GBus

It explains how and why it is so difficult to land meaningful punches on Cameron.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

can you justify the 24 hour drinking law

Very easily, it allowed licence premises commercial freedom to operate according to demand and it helped local authorities regain control over some of the worst licensees.

I never understood the libertarian right's anger about 24-hour drinking (which was a complete misnomer: other than airport bars, nobody has 24-hour licenses)

and the intervention in Iraq? It will be interesting to see what the Chilcot report says about the latter.

The Iraqi intervention was extremely misconceived. Though it was no more misconceived than our more recent interventions in Libya and Syria. I don't see Cameron labelled a war criminal despite admitting, in Parliament, to carrying out extra-judicial executions using drones in Syria.

 

[LateThanNever]

For people who've not seen it, Adam Curtis' piece from 2014 Wipe on "non-linear warfare" was extremely interesting. It mostly talked about how Russia are revolutionising the propaganda war, but you can see many of the same tactics being used by Crosby and the Conservatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOY4Ka-GBus

It explains how and why it is so difficult to land meaningful punches on Cameron.

That was very interesting! Although I tend to think it suggests that Cameron and Osborne are cleverer than they really are. Cameron was a PR man in earlier life and he still is. He believes in motherhood and apple pie and ducks and weaves in order to remain leader - that seems to be his sole aim. Osborne is equally shameless. They are fortunate that the newsprint press is mostly owned by Conservative billionaires and the BBC is spineless in the face of government criticsm.
That's why Labour's message should be startlingly simple.
Austerity is a con and this is how Britain's money is really created.... McDonnell has lots of prominent economists to back it up too.

 

[Harbornite]

Are you seriously proposing we repeal the 24 hour drinking law?

Not necessarily. Has there been a link between that legislation coming into force and alcohol-related casualties in A&E?

*Edit* This article is a good read. Looks like the 24 hour drinking rule was perhaps not a bad peice of legislation after all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sho...s-best-thing-Labour-ever-did-says-report.html

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Iraqi intervention was extremely misconceived. Though it was no more misconceived than our more recent interventions in Libya and Syria. I don't see Cameron labelled a war criminal despite admitting, in Parliament, to carrying out extra-judicial executions using drones in Syria.

The fight against ISIS is arguably a better cause than the campaign to topple Saddam in 2003. As a matter of fact, we know now that the intervention in Iraq led to the establishment of ISIS.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The fight against ISIS is arguably a better cause than the campaign to topple Saddam in 2003. As a matter of fact, we know now that the intervention in Iraq led to the establishment of ISIS.

Saddam Hussein represented a strong Sunni tribal presence and had been involved with a bloody war lasting a number of years with the Shia stronghold of Iran. in the years prior to the Western intervention.

ISIL represents a Sunni Wahaabist wish for a Sharia law led caliphate that will reach from Africa north and south of the Sahara across the continents to Indonesia where Muslim populations are very large.

 

[Harbornite]

Saddam Hussein represented a strong Sunni tribal presence and had been involved with a bloody war lasting a number of years with the Shia stronghold of Iran. in the years prior to the Western intervention.

ISIL represents a Sunni Wahaabist wish for a Sharia law led caliphate that will reach from Africa north and south of the Sahara across the continents to Indonesia where Muslim populations are very large.

I am already aware of this, the Iran-Iraq war of 1988 led to Iraq's economic problems that became an incentive for the invasion of Kuwait in late 1990, which indirectly led to Al Qaeda's campaign against the USA. Regarding ISIS, many of its leaders were introduced to each other while held in custody in US administered jails. It's also no surprise that some ex-members of the B'aath party are now members of Daesh.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Cameron was a happy to fight alongside ISIS, remember; it was Miliband who saw that vote off. The situation in the Middle East is complex, and its too simplistic to say ISIS were created because of the Iraq war. Meddling in the middle east goes back to the 50s- the CIA installed Assad, who is just as bad as ISIS- and everyone who's meddled needs to take responsibility.

I'd agree that Cameron and Osborne are not that clever- though they're not as green as they are cabbage looking- but Lynton Crosby IS that devious.

 

[RichmondCommu]

@RichmondCommu - borrowing is printing is borrowing. We have a fractional reserve banking system. Our banks create money every day. We recently tripled tuition fees and had the government pay it up front - created new money, handed it to the banks who then have a new "asset" on their balance sheets to make them look more solvent.

And again, central and commercial banks have flooded the world with new money and inflation has gone to flat or negative - the old hyperinflation model isn't there because the economic system is broken.

And FWIW Yvette Cooper made a huge song and dance during her election campaign that borrowing money for investment was highly irresponsible - so I believe that the alternative proposal is "don't". Which slows the economy even more and brakes/breaks the system even more.

You seem to be unable to accept that People's Quantitative Easing would fatally compromise the BoE’s standing on global credit markets. In my opinion the central banks should only look at whether there is too much or too little money in the economy… and not at narrower questions, such as whether there are enough railways or houses being built in Britain.

If the financial markets believe the BoE is no longer exercising careful restraint in its creation of new money, and is instead the de-facto vehicle for funding politically popular projects, sterling would weaken and inflation would rise. Surely you can see that?

 

[Harbornite]

Cameron was a happy to fight alongside ISIS, remember; it was Miliband who saw that vote off. The situation in the Middle East is complex, and its too simplistic to say ISIS were created because of the Iraq war. Meddling in the middle east goes back to the 50s- the CIA installed Assad, who is just as bad as ISIS- and everyone who's meddled needs to take responsibility.

I'd agree that Cameron and Osborne are not that clever- though they're not as green as they are cabbage looking- but Lynton Crosby IS that devious.

I remember that vote in 2013, I was happy with the outcome of it. Just goes to show how much has changes since.

 

[kegdr]

As a matter of fact, we know now that the intervention in Iraq led to the establishment of ISIS.

What's now known as ISIS was formed in 1999, 4 years before the 2003 invasion.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Cameron was a happy to fight alongside ISIS, remember

I sincerely think you ought to re-read what you say above. I have never seen Cameron described as " a happy" before, whatsoever that is meant to signify, but more seriously, the statement that Cameron was in any way connected with ISIS as he would have been advised by those senior figures in the British armed forces on the difference between the Syrian anti-Government forces and the far more extreme ISIS groupings who saw the opportunity to use this struggle as one way of establishing a power base in that area, as another part of their vision of a Wahaabist version of Sunni Islam caliphate that stretches from Indonesia to the areas of Africa, both north and south of the Sahara.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd agree that Cameron and Osborne are not that clever- though they're not as green as they are cabbage looking.

But most certainly clever enough to hold two of the most powerful positions in British government, which proves the old adage...."Looks aren't everything".

 

[krus_aragon]

*Edit* This article is a good read. Looks like the 24 hour drinking rule was perhaps not a bad peice of legislation after all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sho...s-best-thing-Labour-ever-did-says-report.html

I'd just like to remind everyone that correlation does not imply causation. The article does, of course, mention this (very) briefly at the end:

"It is impossible to tell whether these trends are linked to the Act in any way," Mr Snowdon said.

 

[yorksrob]

Particularly since the act hasn't led to anything like 24 hour opening in pubs and bars anyway.

 

[meridian2]

What's now known as ISIS was formed in 1999, 4 years before the 2003 invasion.

Yes, but had it not been for the actual invasion, chances are ISIS would've remained small in numbers and relatively subdued.
The act of removing a keystone (keyfigure?) such as Saddam Hussein has led to factions in Iraq trying to vie for power, ISIS included.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the statement that Cameron was in any way connected with ISIS as he would have been advised by those senior figures in the British armed forces on the difference between the Syrian anti-Government forces and the far more extreme ISIS groupings who saw the opportunity to use this struggle as one way of establishing a power base in that area

The vote was to fight in Syria against Assad's government forces. No distinction was made as to which anti-Assad forces we would be in collaboration with. Not that the distinction would make any real difference: obliterating the Assad forces would have opened the door for ISIS.

 

[pemma]

The vote was to fight in Syria against Assad's government forces. No distinction was made as to which anti-Assad forces we would be in collaboration with. Not that the distinction would make any real difference: obliterating the Assad forces would have opened the door for ISIS.

The government didn't understand enough about what was going on when Cameron was pushing for military action in Syria. He was telling us he understood Assad was using chemical weapons against civilians and that was enough justification for military action but there wasn't clear evidence whether it was Assad or the rebels who were using them. The MPs voting against Cameron has probably prevented Cameron from ending up in a similar situation to the one Blair is now in over the war in Iraq.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tell me, did anyone get rid of people like Corbyn who weren't united behind Blair? Oh, sorry, that was different, it was okay for him to be the biggest rebel in the Labour Party because he's A Good Guy, but not that Corbyn is the leader then we should de-select any MPs who don't slavishly toe the party line that he has decreed?

The Blair administration did kick out the rebel George Galloway though.

Apparently Luciana Berger isn't a fan of Corbyn and has recently spoken out against Ken Livingstone yet she has a shadow minister role as she cares passionately about mental health and Corbyn decided it was a good idea to create a Shadow Mental Health Minister position.

What's happened both here and in America is an increasing number of people are fed up of the 'political class' and want something different like Corbyn, The Green Party, Trump, Sanders etc. over more conventional politicians and parties.

 

[LateThanNever]

You seem to be unable to accept that People's Quantitative Easing would fatally compromise the BoE’s standing on global credit markets. In my opinion the central banks should only look at whether there is too much or too little money in the economy… and not at narrower questions, such as whether there are enough railways or houses being built in Britain.

If the financial markets believe the BoE is no longer exercising careful restraint in its creation of new money, and is instead the de-facto vehicle for funding politically popular projects, sterling would weaken and inflation would rise. Surely you can see that?

I fear your thought process has been captured by the banks:
"would fatally compromise the BoE’s standing on global credit markets".
What like Quantitative Easing has done? There's £375 billion of that. We've been doing that for 8 years – just for the private banks! Britain is able to borrow money if it so chooses at rates that are probably the lowest they have ever been. So our standing on the global credit markets could actually get a few points worse (not that I think it would) and nobody would notice.
We have a sovereign fiat currency, which is ours to take ownership of. And use it for the benefit of the UK's population - 5% of whom are still currently unemployed. That resource is the one that is underused. I don't enjoy being unemployed much and so I think we need full employment. If the banks don't like it what can they do about it? Why should the banks even have any say in the matter?
“BoE is no longer exercising careful restraint in its creation of new money”
The BoE creates 3% of new money, the rest is created by private banks as loans and 85% of that goes to property loans. There's no restraint – that's why we have a property bubble. The amount of money in the economy is immaterial. (Anyway whose economy? Panama's or the British Virgin Islands?) It is private debt that is important and that is going up and that is why the economy won't move.Why would you spend when you've got debt to repay? And the more the property market and rent market increases the less possibility there is of Britain ever competing in the world because workers have to borrow so much or pay so much rent simply to pay for shelter. And that is one of life's essentials.
I think about half of the Quantitative Easing is due for renewal in September. Labour should be saying we'll take that and put it into infrastructure, broadband, social housing and buying out PFI which is helping to bankrupt schools, hospitals, police and fire services. It won't be a quick fix but it would be a start.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's happened both here and in America is an increasing number of people are fed up of the 'political class' and want something different like Corbyn, The Green Party, Trump, Sanders etc. over more conventional politicians and parties.

The political class both here and in the US have all been captured by the banks - that's where they all go to 'work' after office. The banks have successfully led us all to beleive that they make our money.They don't. The government makes our money.