I presume she does - hand up, not hand out and all that.

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign for leader has apparently received a boost from the unlikeliest of sources. From ITV -

 

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn's bid for the party's leadership has been given a boost from an unlikely source - Conservative Party members.

 

A Twitter campaign, using the hashtag #ToriesforCorbyn, has prompted many to take advantage of an offer allowing people to sign up for £3 to have their say in the contest to replace Ed Miliband.

 

Some Conservatives argue that Corbyn's left-wing, anti-austerity stance would not play well with the public, and have stumped up themselves to contribute.

 

Right-wing columnist Toby Young tweeted an image of the membership screen, responding to the question "why did you sign up as a registered supporter?" with "to consign Labour to electoral oblivion".

 

Corbyn - a late addition to the nomination list after achieving the required 35 nominations from the party's MPs shortly before Monday's deadline - has yet to respond to the campaign.

 

Some figures within Labour say his inclusion has offered a welcome broadening of the debate over the party's future - with other candidates Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall deemed further toward the centre ground.

 

However, outspoken Bassetlaw MP John Mann condemned his candidacy as a demonstration of "our desire never to win again".

 

 

How arrogant but it's the Tories I guess!

 

Remember TINA There is no Alternative!

 

Would it be correct to describe the candidates like this -

 

Corbyn - Bennite/Bevanite

Burnham - Milibandite (Ed)

Cooper - Brownite

Kendall - Croslandite/Blairite

I doubt the Tories for Corbyn will actually be able to vote. At least the ones stupid enough to announce it - these things do get filtered.

 

Burnham's more Old Right with Cooper Soft Left (Kinnockite) but that's about right. And Bennism certainly wasn't coterminous with Bevanism! The Bevanites were fairly unyielding but they at least retained some pragmatism, unlike the Bennites.

I'm intrigued as to where Danny's desire for a populist Labour Party ends. Death penalty?

I'm intrigued as to where Danny's desire for a populist Labour Party ends. Death penalty?

 

Eh? I don't have a desire for one -- not least, because I think one of Labour's basic jobs is to protect people on benefits rather than giving into the public's spiteful scrounger-bashing.

 

I'm just making the point that if as the Blairites claim that the way to win is to "compromise with the electorate", then it's odd that they don't practice what they preach. They claim that it's necessary to endlessly compromise on the economy because it's supposedly what the public want (even though the evidence is mixed for that), yet they have their own blindly ideological views on immigration, Europe and public-service marketisation despite them being opposed by the public.

Edited June 17, 201510 yr by Danny

Eh? I don't have a desire for one -- not least, because I think one of Labour's basic jobs is to protect people on benefits rather than giving into the public's spiteful scrounger-bashing.

 

issues like this are always viewed as absolutes - as if attempting to tackle those who do take the pee (and there are plenty who do choose not to work if they can possibly get away with it, including having as many kids as possible to keep the income stream going) is an attack on the unfortunate needy and suffering from ill-health. The current approach is to assume everyone on benefits is a scrounger and they have to prove weekly that they are not, unless they have an actual medical condition (which does not include obesity which can be sorted with exercise and moderate eating and if needed therapy support) - handing this over to the private sector who get rewards for pushing people who should be on benefits off is no solution to actual losses in professional staff, a false economy.

 

The problem is the Tories just assume everyone is a scrounger and all get hit. The problem with Labour is they assume everyone is genuinely claiming and quote nonsense statistics as some sort of "proof". The truth is somewhere in between and a balance needs striking.

I doubt the Tories for Corbyn will actually be able to vote. At least the ones stupid enough to announce it - these things do get filtered.

 

Burnham's more Old Right with Cooper Soft Left (Kinnockite) but that's about right. And Bennism certainly wasn't coterminous with Bevanism! The Bevanites were fairly unyielding but they at least retained some pragmatism, unlike the Bennites.

 

 

Whats an example of the old right?

 

Yeh Benn became more left wing in office as once he was a member of the government he realised how he corporation and the finanacial barons dominated the economy. Basically a Trot! Dunno how you would compare Bevanites - all legends to me though!!

Eh? I don't have a desire for one -- not least, because I think one of Labour's basic jobs is to protect people on benefits rather than giving into the public's spiteful scrounger-bashing.

 

I'm just making the point that if as the Blairites claim that the way to win is to "compromise with the electorate", then it's odd that they don't practice what they preach. They claim that it's necessary to endlessly compromise on the economy because it's supposedly what the public want (even though the evidence is mixed for that), yet they have their own blindly ideological views on immigration, Europe and public-service marketisation despite them being opposed by the public.

Because it's about issue salience. That Labour would 'spend too much' is probably the number one issue stopping people from voting Labour. Wanting to stay in the EU and supporting the existence of academies isn't really the kind of thing that has swing voters declaring disgust with Labour en masse. There's also a far more recent example of those views being electorally successful than there is for the alternatives.

 

And yeah, it's blindly ideological to pretend that immigration doesn't cause any problems for people at all. That isn't the position of Labour moderates.

Whats an example of the old right?

Hattersley, Callaghan et al.

Wanting to stay in the EU and supporting the existence of academies isn't really the kind of thing that has swing voters declaring disgust with Labour en masse.

 

Might not be now, but considering there's a huge underlying suspicion that Labour isn't patriotic enough and that they're too weak-willed to stand firm when anyone other than the British/English starts making demands of them, that won't necessarily always be the case. If Labour allow themselves to be painted as EU enthusiasts then expect posters in 2020 with "Don't let Juncker grab your cash".

 

There's also a far more recent example of those views being electorally successful than there is for the alternatives.

 

The most recent example of Labour winning was based on them improving poor people's lives with significant amounts of public spending.

Edited June 17, 201510 yr by Danny

The most recent example of Labour winning was based on them improving poor people's lives with significant amounts of public spending.

...which we were trusted to do because Brown (and 18 years of Tory government) had earned us credibility on the economy.

 

I don't buy the idea that we'll march back to power on a populist anti-austerity stance, at least not if it's framed in the way that it has been in the last five years. There's a very strong economic case against further cuts but the right of the party doesn't care and the left is taking far too long going through the motions.

The most recent example of Labour winning was based on them improving poor people's lives with significant amounts of public spending.

It was eventually. The most recent example of Labour winning *to begin with* was based on them being prudent and following Conservative spending plans, with moderate reassigning of the spending to help the least well-off. It's much easier to persuade people that significant amounts of public spending won't lead to the sky falling in and debts racking up once you're in power and can prove that won't be the case. (In opposition you move to the centre, in government you move the centre etc etc)

That was certainly my immediate reaction when Blair won for the first time:

 

"Oh for effs sake we don't need another Tory Government. Why did John Smith have to go and die"

 

My second reaction was:

 

"Oh well at least it's finally got rid of those bloody Tories"

 

My third reaction was:

 

"Ah here we go again with another round of local gov reorganisation as those outsourced come back in-house"

 

 

 

Local Gov employees get batted around every general election like a bloody tennis ball, as our wages decline year on year inevitably and workloads increase year on year as people crack, give it up, leave and don't get replaced. Things are worse by far in 2015 (already, before any more cuts are implemented) than at any time since 1984 (when I joined). That includes Thatcher.

First live hustings event on bbc 2 now from Nuneton symbolically!

Edited June 17, 201510 yr by steve201

Watching it now. I think I just heard Liz Kendell say that she supports the introduction of the Australian points system for immigration, which I'm sure will go down well.

Kendall is trying to set herself apart from the others and the grassroots!

 

It all just fell apart on the immigration question!!

So this debate will be remembered for Burnham saying its all about the Party and Kendall & Cooper trying to take responsibility for saying its actually all about the people!

And Cooper?

Toby Perkins said it was Kendall who said it in response but the news reporter on bbc bews after said it was Cooper and i thought the same.

 

Whatd you think f the debate?