All he's doing is pushing his particular hobby horse, which has nothing to do with any political movement of consequence. Whether it's a good idea or not, the headline and the article bear no relation to each other.

I think he's trying to suggest where they need to go next now that he's gonna be writing a column , but that doesn't make him wrong in my view - Labour need to set out what they stand for in detail. For instance they could totally make this work for them



That's exactly the sort of thing that cost them the election because the Tories could still point at Wallace and create doubt, 'Him? Really?', even though he was totally on the right track. They need to believe and continually attack with it, cos even I'm old enough to know there's a lingering notion that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy. He's not wrong about them lurching all over the place with it, and it's just yet another instance where neither friend nor foe believes their intent.

The public see the Conservatives as a bunch of nasty but necessary mercenaries because Labour look like Dad's Army... They stand for nothing now when they could be legitimately calling the Tories all the bastards of the day. This is why someone who even glances to the left has the Blairites sh1tting themselves, but the fact that Corbyn of all people started off being laughed at and now has them quaking shows how long they've abandoned their traditional support for. Even within the party!

He smuggled Tony Blair's 'internal competition' healthcare reform right in there without you noticing.

Burnham rejects charges of sexism and vows to name female Commons deputy | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ons-deputy

Rejects sexism by pledging to appoint a gender-balanced shadow cabinet and a female Commons deputy. 'Positive' sexism is apparently fine.

Andy Burnham: timid Labour would not be up to creating the NHS today | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... create-nhs

FFS, I don't know how many politicians I've heard say those exact same things over the last twenty years. It's the sort of reason ostensibly nationalistic parties do so well now.

Labour must 'end the madness' over Jeremy Corbyn, says Alan Johnson | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... nson#img-2

I've lost all respect for Alan Johnson now. He pretty much waited until the endgame before splitting the party even further while claiming allegiance to traditional Labour values*, the NHS and university!

* Bit late for that, son, that's why Jeremy's doing so well.
...

Jeremy Corbyn: Osborne's northern powerhouse plan is 'cruel deception' | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -deception

I mean look at him - who does he think he is with his specific details and supporters?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -ownership

Lol @ Liz losing her sh1t

JC walks on water. what a breath of fresh air in politics ...

Well, he patently doesn't. But you're right about the second bit and that makes him dangerous, because there's always a group of people who are fed up and looking for something new. There have been at least a couple of places in Europe recently where the growing 'anti-establishment' moment has been met by the political establishment in the following sequence.

"oh, that's so funny, he's a socialist, he'll never get.. what, he got the party leadership? Oh well, I mean, it's not as if people will ever vote for... OH [LIFTED]. Err.. Mr corporation, can I have a job?"

Doesn't really matter if he's a success as a leader, if he makes the other leaders look bad/weak/lame. You can ruin someone else's political credibility while not having any of your own - ref: Margaret Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe. This is essentially what's already happening in the labour party leadership campaign - whether Corbyn wins or not, the fact the other candidates have looked so incapable of actually dealing with him properly makes them look like much worse politicians. Whoever does win (assuming it's isn't Corbyn) will have a much harder time convincing the party & public they're any use. The question in the back of people's minds will be 'you couldn't even handle Corbyn properly, what makes you think you can run the country?'

have you read 'a very British coup' ? ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28313.html

Yes, I have as it happens. I also understand the difference between fiction and reality.

then please start to grasp that this fiction may very well become reality, something i am very much looking forward too ...

Yes, because if a bit of a book vaguely looks like the real world then obviously the rest of the book will automatically happen in reality. Like how the world really is full of spies in dinner jackets and villainous millionaires holed up inside luxuriously appointed hollowed out volcanos.

What will happen will happen. Given nobody can even make a good job of predicting how a general election will end up in the UK currently, I think anyone claiming to know what's going to happen with Corbyn & the rest is the one who has a somewhat loose grip on reality.

Yvette Cooper: ‘It's not enough to be angry - you have to be able to change things’ | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ng-extreme

She's nowhere near as dumb as the others, but basically saying protest does little to a party built and funded on it... It's quite clear she drank a bit too much of the New Labour Kool-Aid.



Er, no, it would likely mean just being honest about the figures, cos Boy George's are clearly overcooked. He's also been ditching pledges all round him that would have cost a fortune - compare that with Jeremy even having the balls to talk about it!

She's quite right "quantitative easing for infrastructure" is a polite euphemism for monetary financing. MF is a major taboo, the financial equivalent of incest combined with cannibalism. If Labour goes into an election proposing any such thing they will be eviscerated, and they will deserve it.