Ed ... the contrarian view

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... has he been stitched up as Mr Burnham asserts [it is noticeable that the Toff Boys problems have been a) quite remarkable nasty this last fortnight and b) off the front pages]

and any person can be made to look a complete prat by a photographer selecting and editing a series of rapid exposures ...

is he a real threat to seriously nasty vested interests like energy companies and banks? if only he were!

[Serial_Apologist]

... has he been stitched up as Mr Burnham asserts [it is noticeable that the Toff Boys problems have been a) quite remarkable nasty this last fortnight and b) off the front pages]

and any person can be made to look a complete prat by a photographer selecting and editing a series of rapid exposures ...

is he a real threat to seriously nasty vested interests like energy companies and banks? if only he were!

My friend who writes for Compass has gleaned no impression whatever of any hotbed of discussion inside the Labouir Party, unlike that which took place in the early 1980s when I was in it, so we'll have to wait, but not much longer, to see of EM has any rabbits to pull out of the bag. I've long argued that the expulsion/neutralisation of any organised left beyond individual dissidents, and subsequent desertion by others equally affected by the snuffing of inner democracy, left the LP bereft of incisive thinking of any kind, leaving an opening for the eventual Bl\airreite takeover. From there on the ideological division was between Blair's modified Thatcherism and the old middle grounders like Hattersley who'd been responsible for much of the damage in the first place.

[Richard Barrett]

the LP bereft of incisive thinking of any kind

As Michael Rosen wrote in his blog today, "'austerity' is in fact, a realignment, a shuffling. It's the means by which the poor stay poor (or are made poorer) and the rich to stay rich (or get richer). It's nothing to do with the money that Labour did or did not borrow during its time in power. It's entirely to do with the decisions that are made by financiers, finance ministers and giant corporations. Having taken risks that failed (on a massive scale, involving all sorts of gigantic fiddles and cons), they are trying to claw back solvency through making the mass of people work for less money and have much less by way of public services and benefits." This is what Miliband should be hammering home at every opportunity. Almost the entire Labour Party allows the posh boys and their media outlets to decide the agenda. It's almost as if they want to lose the next election.

[ahinton]

As Michael Rosen wrote in his blog today, "'austerity' is in fact, a realignment, a shuffling. It's the means by which the poor stay poor (or are made poorer) and the rich to stay rich (or get richer). It's nothing to do with the money that Labour did or did not borrow during its time in power. It's entirely to do with the decisions that are made by financiers, finance ministers and giant corporations. Having taken risks that failed (on a massive scale, involving all sorts of gigantic fiddles and cons), they are trying to claw back solvency through making the mass of people work for less money and have much less by way of public services and benefits." This is what Miliband should be hammering home at every opportunity. Almost the entire Labour Party allows the posh boys and their media outlets to decide the agenda. It's almost as if they want to lose the next election.

It does rather seem that way - but mightn't it be possible that all the other parties will come to lose it as well? Their respective positions all seem to be looking increasingly parlous and, if UKIP's looks slightly less so than the others, all that this seems likely to ensure (assuming that it stays that way) is that it will be even worse for all the others and make the likelihood of the emergence of any kind of government all the less.

[amateur51]

My friend who writes for Compass has gleaned no impression whatever of any hotbed of discussion inside the Labouir Party, unlike that which took place in the early 1980s when I was in it, so we'll have to wait, but not much longer, to see of EM has any rabbits to pull out of the bag. I've long argued that the expulsion/neutralisation of any organised left beyond individual dissidents, and subsequent desertion by others equally affected by the snuffing of inner democracy, left the LP bereft of incisive thinking of any kind, leaving an opening for the eventual Bl\airreite takeover. From there on the ideological division was between Blair's modified Thatcherism and the old middle grounders like Hattersley who'd been responsible for much of the damage in the first place.

Let's not forget Lord Jenkins of Hillhead who proudly described himself as a mentor of Tony Blair (before Blair became Prime Minister).

[Serial_Apologist]

Let's not forget Lord Jenkins of Hillhead who proudly described himself as a mentor of Tony Blair (before Blair became Prime Minister).

One would never speak ill of the departed, ams. [wink].

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er did you have to remind us ams?

well i liked his speech but he was noticeably silent about banging up bankers Chummy seems quite keen on city gents eh? and public ownership will scare him ... he and Balls and Cooper are spawn of Broooon and it still shows

[Serial_Apologist]

My friend who writes for Compass has gleaned no impression whatever of any hotbed of discussion inside the Labouir Party, unlike that which took place in the early 1980s when I was in it, so we'll have to wait, but not much longer, to see of EM has any rabbits to pull out of the bag. I've long argued that the expulsion/neutralisation of any organised left beyond individual dissidents, and subsequent desertion by others equally affected by the snuffing of inner democracy, left the LP bereft of incisive thinking of any kind, leaving an opening for the eventual Bl\airreite takeover. From there on the ideological division was between Blair's modified Thatcherism and the old middle grounders like Hattersley who'd been responsible for much of the damage in the first place.

The paucity of ideological connection inside Labour continues to reflect what I wrote above on Nov 13. We now are presented with the embarrassing spectacle of MPs who claim to disagree with what Jeremy Corbyn is standing for nevertheless supporting his nomination, making it hard to avoid concluding that the other politically indistinguishable clones offer nothing of substance except what lost Labour the general election.

At least some are apparently thinking up a rule change that will allow for the swift empeachment of the party leader should he or she not prove up to the job; but as far as one can see this will merely have the consequence of making Labour more like the Tory Party.

[Flosshilde]

& while the Labour Party fiddles with leadership elections, the Tories continue to make bonfires of the welfare state.

[Serial_Apologist]

& while the Labour Party fiddles with leadership elections, the Tories continue to make bonfires of the welfare state.

Too true, Floss.

I see there's a Labour Leadership Debate tonight at 7 pm on BBC 2 featuring all the candidates in front of a studio audience. Screeing means usually only the most innocuous members of the public seem to get invited to these events; and though I'll be watching I'm not reassured by Laura Kuenssberg chairing it, given her record in my experience of lording it over proceedings and constantly interrupting, not allowing ideas to be developed.