POLITICS CORNER

[plaques]

Does anyone know what is going on with Greece and the Euro? To be honest I’m getting rather confused. Let’s start with the easy bit. Five years ago Mr Cameron declared a milestone agreement where the UK would not be held responsible for bailing out any Euro country that failed. We are now told that this wasn’t really an agreement more of an understanding and as far as Mr Cameron was concerned a misunderstanding. Brussels now declared they want Euro850m from us. Well we are not going to pay it are we Ossie. After being called to the headmasters study they returned to say they would agree to this measly amount, hardly a Banker’s bonus really, with the assurance it was ‘Ring Fenced’, whatever that means. But if Greece did go belly up we would get it back from the profits on the Greek bonds. Has it never occurred to them that if Greece did fail then the bonds would be totally worthless. Also, as a double lock, repayment could come from the EU budget. But wouldn’t we have to make an extra payment to balance the budget?
Moving on to Greece and its debt. The IMF won’t give Greece the next part of the agreed loan until it pays back the last instalment. The EU banks are waiting for their repayment and are unable or unwilling to find any extra cash. Step in Brussels with its emergency funding so that it can lend it to Greece who will pay back the IMF who will lend them some more to payback the Banks who will lend them some more to pay back the IMF who will… Do I make myself clear? Meanwhile Mr Tsipras has reorganised his cabinet to make sure he is still there in six months time when an in-depth review will take place. Metaphorically, he is giving them a one digit salute telling them he is still number one, ( I think that’s what it means), until the whole Euro fiasco collapses in a heap.
On the side lines Mark Carney is trying to talk up confidence by saying that a rise in interest rates is getting nearer. So is the year 3000.
I just can’t believe a word any of them says.

[Stanley]

That was an early Post P and sums the situation up nicely. As I said above, all the EU are interested in at the moment is getting Greece off the agenda for another three years. What they will do during that time to rectify the flaws in the EU is anybody's guess. I think they will just procrastinate and massage their own parliamentary majorities. Meanwhile in all this what effect is this having on the other dodgy EU economies. The news coverage is too simplistic and broad brush. We are all left guessing. The main lesson in all this is that politicians and the existing political processes are inadequate for dealing with such matters. Germany wants draconian powers over all the member's economies but with them in charge. Perhaps what is needed is a completely independent body with powers to impose economic policy on all the EU members. I can't see that one getting off the ground.....

[PanBiker]

Another major spouting from Cameron today. All suspected cancer sufferers are to get their results within 4 weeks of diagnosis by 2020 this apparently will save 10,000 souls per year. In the meantime 50,000 will die waiting for their results. In another breath he announced that all deemed outdated radiotherapy equipment would be replaced by 2020. A leading cancer specialists has asked where all the money is coming from to replace tens of millions of pounds worth of kit, as yet there is no reply to that one.

Best not get poorly for 5 years, apparently Utopia for many things arrives in 2020.

[Tizer]

We've entered a new world where politicians believe they can get away with making the most outlandish promises, whether it be in the UK or in Greece or elsewhere.

As for Greece, they are at the mercy of Germany. Expect lots of social unrest in both Greece and Germany, followed by more trouble in other European countries. Keep in mind William Hague's expression first used in 1998:
In September 2011, Hague said that the euro is "a burning building with no exits" for some of the countries which adopted the currency. Hague first used the expression when he was Conservative leader in 1998—and said in an interview with the Spectator he had been proved right. "It was folly to create this system. It will be written about for centuries as a kind of historical monument to collective folly. But it's there and we have to deal with it," he said. "I described the euro as a burning building with no exits and so it has proved for some of the countries in it," he said. He added "I might take the analogy too far but the euro wasn't built with exits so it is very difficult to leave it." (From Wikipedia.)

[Stanley]

I think it's a good analogy. I am certain that the troubles within the EU will not be solved until they have fixed the Euro and this will be an enormous task persuading all the members to give up political and economic sovereignty. I heard a snatch of a report that one EU spokesman has said that what is needed is a special convention to examine the problem but I can't find any report on the web. Perhaps they read my post of yesterday....
The Greek banks open today but with restrictions on what can be drawn and international transfers. VAT goes up from 13.5% to 23.6%. This is just the start of the new regime, Athens will be crawling with expensive suits from the EU poking their noses into the administration. It will feel as though the Germans have occupied Greece again.... This is not going to end well.

[Tizer]

It will feel as though the Germans have occupied Greece again.... This is not going to end well.

Indeed. Robert Peston has written a long essay published this afternoon on the BBC web site. Very interesting but the bit that's most relevant to your prediction is at the end. Here it is:

"Most would say it would be far better if the private sector would bail out the banks. But that is inconceivable if the €10bn it injected into them just two years ago is consumed in this inferno. In fact if the global investors in Greek banks don't immediately sue any regulator and central banker which treated the banks as going concerns over the past year - which is every regulator - then Wall Street and City lawyers have all become tree-hugging softies. Also, to state the obvious, private sector investors would not invest a penny in Greek banks for years and possibly decades to come. So Greek banks would go from being partly nationalised to wholly nationalised for the foreseeable future.

"Of course, paradoxically, that may be the dream-come-true of the left-wing Syriza government - though in practice Mr Tsipras and his colleagues won't be thrilled that the banks would be run from Frankfurt and Brussels, owners of Greece and its banks via the bailout, not Athens." LINK

[Stanley]

Peston is correct I reckon. Investment in 'bail out bonds' has been seen as an opportunity by international traders for many years. Despite the fact they were in effect investing in insolvent entities they realised that they were not going to be allowed to fail so what was normally unthinkable became the norm. The latest fudge by the EU is evidence they got the bet right. The only flaw in that reasoning is that though the latest deal had taken some immediate pressure off the (now EU controlled) banks, it has exacerbated the political tensions in Greece and as before, it may be the Greek people who precipitate the next episode in this sorry story. Politically, Greece is balanced on a knife edge.
I go back to Piketty who's forecast was that if altruistic measures weren't applied to the problem of the growing imbalance between the rich and the poor wasn't addressed, all he could see was social unrest. This has always been true in the past and there's no reason to think that this fundamental societal mechanism has been suspended. Think of IS and the problems they are causing. The root cause of it is long term exploitation of a group in society by religious schisms and exploitation by Western Powers over the years. Pressures like these lead to revolution.
The EU should never have got itself into this hole but did so by fostering the illusion that a single currency was possible and fudging the necessary political and budgetary controls needed to make it work because of the difficulty of achieving them. This is why I have argued all along that Tsipras and Syriza were correct in their handling of the crisis, in effect a political revolt designed to trigger change. The next stage could well be a popular uprising.....
I see a parallel in the UK. Cameron and the Tories are blasting ahead with their project to reclaim the ground lost by the 'ruling classes' in the class war of the 20th Century. I fear they have forgotten that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This won't end well either.....
See THIS for a report of the 48 Labour MPs who broke the whip last night, ignored Harriet Harman and voted against the Tory welfare cuts. I should think so too... Harriet has her eye on making the party acceptable to the Centre and has forgotten the principles on which the party was founded. They will never get any unity or become a strong opposition if they keep trimming their sails like this. They must either set out clear social policies aimed at supporting the lowest in society or throw in the towel, admit they are Liberal Democrats and abandon their roots. At the moment I can't see what Labour actually stands for.
Give the Tories their due, apart from some internal bones of contention (they always exist) they have a clear programme and are going for it. Contrast this with what New Labour did in 1997, they were too timid and basically followed Tory policies. That didn't go well.......

[Stanley]

As I said yesterday, you have to give credit where it's due.... I watched Ossie on TV last night talking about his welfare reforms and the new round of departmental cuts which in some cases could reach 40% according to reliable reports. It was a magnificently well-crafted presentation. Sounded reasonable, sensible and completely appropriate. This man is Prime Minister in waiting! Now there's a thought to conjure with.
Unfortunately, my view is somewhat different and I am not alone.... Leaving aside the trail of deprivation and misery the welfare cuts are causing (and this will get worse), the policy of slashing all expenditure except those which would be political suicide is a recipe for contraction, not growth. All this at a time when our credit is still good and investment funding has never been any cheaper. If you want an analogy, look at the way successful large businesses have traditionally run their affairs. They were not frightened of borrowing if the return from the subsequent investment was greater than the cost of the funding and therefore was profitable. This is the policy we should be using now but in common with every other failed economic policy over the last century we are listening to simplistic economic theories based an the Micawber Principle. The long term damage being caused is incalculable....
But what the hell do I know about these things.... I am going to die soon and it will all be irrelevant.... However, I fear that future generations are going to look back at the beginning of the 21st century and wonder how we could have been so stupid.
The crying need is for policies that increase the disposable income of the lower 85% of the population. This is the money that goes straight back into the economy and increases all economic activity and opportunity for well paid work. This is what was done in the 1980s and produced amazing growth in the economy and a consequent rise in both living standards and quality of life. Instead, this government is pandering to the large capital holders and the economic dinosaurs, increasing inequality by widening the gap between rich and poor and shrinking the base economy, all in the name of Tory 'principles'....
Yes. I'm angry.....
06:44. I've just heard Ossie criticising a Labour MP for tweeting a negative response to his policies. He said that Labour wanted to drag the country back to the 1980s. He should read his recent economic history.... See what I wrote above.

[plaques]

the new round of departmental cuts which in some cases could reach 40%

I tend to think that this is just some more rhetoric to make people think that he his targeting the big spenders to balance the fact he is taking money from the poor. Philip Hammond, whose department is unprotected and therefore may suffer some of the major cuts, is suggesting that 25 -40% figures are 'aspirational, ranging shots'. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on aimed to detract from what is happening in the real world. Fox hunting, passive Muslims, and now massive cut backs which will never see the light of day unless they only affect the bottom end. Watch out for more services to disappear. More inequality is on the way.

[Stanley]

I'm sure you're right P. As I said, a masterpiece of devious presentation. We are watching the biggest con trick ever developing daily. (Naomi Klein.... 'Shock Doctrine. Everyone should read it!)
I got so angry watching Blair poking his dirty fingers into the Labour leadership race. Typical quote: 'Three times election winner'. And look what he did with it! He trashes Corbin for caring about inequality and the condition of the most disadvantaged in society describing him as 'Left Wing'. How the hell does compassion equate with political leanings? Perhaps it's because anyone as 'right wing' as Blair conveniently dismisses normal human feelings like that. Note that his attack dogs describe anyone supporting Corbin as 'morons'.... Personally I'd rather see a party lose an election for being too caring than win on repressive and divisive policies. They could do worse than read Clause Four again and reflect who it was that ditched it. Yes. I admit I hate Blair and all he stands for, totally obsessed with money and power. Not the material real statesmen and women are made of.
The Opposition in Greece has backed Alexis Tsipras and they have passed the necessary further reform measures to gain respite from the attack Greece is under. They are realists and had to do it but let nobody think that this is abject surrender, there is a head of steam building up in Greece for a different focus of reform, inside the EU. Sooner or later this has to happen if a bigger disaster is to be averted. I repeat what I have said already, what is happening in Greece is a template for life under the federalism and budgetary control that is going to be needed to ensure the survival of the Euro and the EU itself, the only difference will be the degree of severity. This is where the next battlefield lies and it is going to be messy.

[plaques]

He (Blair) trashes Corbin for caring about inequality and the condition of the most disadvantaged in society describing him as 'Left Wing'.

Possibly Corbyn is not as slithery as the rest of them in the Westminster bubble. An extract from Wikipedia =
Economic issues
Corbyn is a socialist, and a strong anti-poverty advocate. He voted against introducing tuition fees in England, and later voted against their being raised. He was opposed to academies and private finance initiatives. He supports renationalisation of railways and the introduction of a living wage. In addition, he advocates a higher rate of tax for the wealthiest and a higher rate of corporation tax to fund public services.[5] In 2015, he fiercely condemned Chancellor George Osborne's budget as an attack on the poorest in the country.
Expenses
From 7 May until 31 August 2010, Corbyn was the lowest expenses-claimer in the House of Commons.

Its a devious world out there and saying what you believe in will probably leave him open to attack from from the 'Right' wingers. Telling your opponent your next move always puts you at a disadvantage.
In truth this may be like a breath of fresh air where people know what he stands for. How many times do you hear " Well; they are all these same aren't they, what's the point of voting"?. It didn't do the SNP any harm. But I suppose English voters are far too sophisticated to be seen to be moving backwards. Who cares about inequality anyhow. What's wrong with a system that puts me at the top.?
Yes, Labour could finish up in the doldrums for a couple of parliaments but its looking that way by moving to the right and trying to steal the Conservative colours.

[Stanley]

Good post P and that Wiki extract is as good a recommendation for suitability to lead a proper Labour Party as any I have ever seen. The contenders keep saying that the reason why they failed with the voters was because nobody knew clearly what they stood for yet when Corbin gives a clear mission statement he is derided. I also agree with you that the certain road to oblivion is to try to be closet Tories. That's what Blair did and look where that eventually landed the party. Add being anti-Trident to the Wiki entry! My kind of man.
Well done John Prescott for going for Blair over his speech. I love the bit where he brought Iraq up....
Have a look at the most successful salesmen, those in advertising serving industry. One of the core principles of promoting a 'brand' is differentiation. The public have to be convinced that there is a clear difference between your product and that of your rivals.
Look back at history.... In t\he latter half of the 19th century the Liberal Party were the radical opposition to the Tories and did well but as they rose in power, influence and personal wealth they tended to morph into an alternative Tory Party. Apart from cooperation in national and coalition governments during and after the Great War this was the start of their long painful decline and the trigger for the formation of an alternative radical political system, the Socialist movement, which eventually became the Labour Party.
Looking into the long term, the biggest threats are the rise of inequality, distribution of wealth and unrest in society. Corbin's principles hit all the right buttons for eventual success and when the Tory Project inevitably fails (as it will) Labour will be perfectly placed to take power and hopefully repeat 1945 which gave us the greatest benefits and advance in living conditions and quality of life. All this is nothing new. For most of its existence the Labour movement has been in opposition but has achieved wonderful things from that position. It can be done again but only if the major figures stop thinking about seizing power, concentrate on core principles and do what they have always been best at, go for the vote of what we used to call the working (and disadvantaged) classes. Prescott was right, follow the heart and do what is right....
Obama makes a telling point when he says that the number of US citizens killed by terror is dwarfed by the tens of thousands killed by gun crime over a similar period. From his mouth to God's Ear!
Europe. Take notice how quiet it is. Someone somewhere id mulling over the new position and exploring what can be done about it. Tsipras and Syriza have tossed a grenade into Brussels. I hope the shock brings common sense and old fashioned statesman like thinking (and women as well). Funnily enough the solution to their problem is closely related to the present position of the Labour Party. They must stop thinking about personal political advantage and concentrate on the core principles that have to be adjusted to rectify the faults inherent in the present system. As I keep saying this is where the major fault lies and it cannot be cured until all members agree to sacrifice political and economic sovereignty to the greater good of the union. Whenever that equation fails, civil war ensues in varying degrees. See the US and other countries including our own....

[Bruff]

One rather hopes Mr Corbyn stays the pace and doesn’t pull out. it’s beyond me what he’s done to deserve the vitriol being poured over his head as I write, but if I had to hazard a guess it’s his indecent tendency to set out calmly and clearly what he plans to do and how he’d go about doing it. As the last election demonstrated, if we needed any reminder, the most important thing is to say an incredible amount of words of incredibly little substance. Surrounded by enough placemen and women to nod sagely at opportune moments you will convince enough people of your sales pitch. An approach ideally suited to third-rate PR spivs and get-rich-quick merchants; less so for ex-Union activists with VSO experience.

Listening to Mr Corbyn, it seems he may well, should he be elected, not actually see it through to the next election. His all pitch is about very quickly providing an effective opposition to the current shower. I had a lot of time from Mr Milliband, but I was extremely disappointed in his following what seems to be the trend of immediately resigning and leaving the party rudderless to the benefit of absolutely no one at all. How on earth could he forget that the lack of an effective opposition for 6months post-2010 allowed the Tories and the Lib-Dems to plant the lie, and it was a lie, that it was Labour that tanked the economy in 2008. The lie was so effective, the Tories can continue lying about now.

So Mr Corbyn should he be leader, would provide effective opposition, would be open to the idea of a broad oppositional coalition, and having seen off the likes of Ms Kendall may well leave the door open in say 2017 for Dan Jarvis and Keir Starmer.

I tell you one thing Mr Corbyn might do though; he might very well galvanise the young out of their apathy. God knows they need galvanising. They are being given an almighty kicking and voter registration among them is pitifully low and actually voting not much better. If I have one purpose during my fleeting time on this earth it’s to ensure that things are at least no worse for those generations that come after me (those now born, and those not). I have to say it upsets me it looks so bleak.

At the last election, Labour were well-ahead of the Tories in thr 18-25 group (the Greens were second), but as noted this group just don’t vote. Up to the over-65s, they were either neck-and-neck or the Tories had a very slight lead. The over-65s voted overwhelmingly for the Tories, and they vote in massive numbers. Basically, this is the pensioner’s administration. And as someone who will sooner than he thinks be a pensioner I’m not happy about that. I’d prefer it if we were all in it together. Which thinking about it is quite a catch phrase: ‘we’re all in it together’. I wonder if it’ll catch on?

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Lovely post Richard and I agree with every word. The orchestrated hysterical flood of attacks not only in the right wing papers but inside the Labour Party itself shows how effective his approach is and like you I hope he stays the course, we need a burr under the Tory saddle!
I was musing as I walked yesterday about a 'what if' and thinking about John Smith's untimely death.... Things could have been different...
Regarding the flood of words and promises, Private Eye reported and yesterday's news confirmed, that all the time Cameron was making his promises about 'The Northern Powerhouse' in the manifesto he knew fine that the promised upgrades to the rail network in the North were over budget and couldn't be effected as he 'promised'. Look at the blatant and persistent lies about the replacement of houses lost to the public low rent sector under the 'right to buy'. Remember what Cameron said about the next scandal being lobbying and then look at the attacks on union funding and then look at the extremely suspect nature of Tory funding.... (Thank God for PE, they report fearlessly on the linkages and surprise surprise, nobody drags them into court for libel!)
Corbyn is a breath of fresh air and God knows politics needs some light and air at the moment.... For that reason alone he should be supported and encouraged.

[plaques]

Jeremy Corbyn’s intervention in the Labour Party leadership has been met with an avalanche of Right- Left comments attempting to place him at some extreme position to the far left. Charts have been drawn shown with a simple line with markers, Right- Left, with no explanation of scale or content. This is reminiscent of George Orwell’s chant in Animal Farm, “Four legs good, Two Legs better. A Google search of what is meant by Right- Left finished with quote : Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions, See: Right-Left.

The debate of what is ‘Fair and Just’ has been going on since Aristotle’s time. Numerous philosophers including Adam Smith, Carl Marks, Bertrand Russell, John Rawls and recently the Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen have all tried to balance the different factors that we see as fair and just. These can range from World wide issues, (slavery, epidemics, military extremism), through National issues, Corporation issues, right down to the individual level. Where one stands in this hierarchy of issues and how much relevance you give to factors that appear to be beyond individual control will colour, if that is the right word, your political outlook.
So back to the Right- Left debate. It is total nonsense to label anyone Right-Left. What really matters is their stand on issues that are relevant to the world around us and what we think is ‘Fair and Just’.

[Stanley]

Couldn't agree more P. I've always liked the description 'Social Democrat' which I have always interpreted as meaning a stance that is in favour of equal opportunity and access to the important elements of life like opportunity, education, justice and the safety net of the Welfare State. All these are under attack now if you are not one of the 'elite'. The sad thing is that this is bad for everyone, regardless of wealth or status.
I get more worried daily about the general situation in the Middle East. The latest announcements by Turkey are a good example. They are attacking IS and the Turkish Kurds (PPK) meanwhile the Kurds are attacking IS. IS attacks both. Add to this Turkey giving facilities to the US who are allied to both them and the Kurds. Confused? Join the club!
Meanwhile, not in the news but serious is the position in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Looking back at the history of enmity and exploitation going back to the Crusades you can't help thinking that in terms of East/West relations and religious differences, the West isn't fit to run a booze-up in a brewery.
Meanwhile, there is a deathly hush in Europe. The only straw in the wind I have noted is that the value of the Euro against the pound used to be a fairly constant 85p, it is now almost down to 65p. I can't help thinking that apart from all the other factors, this is significant.

[Nolic]

Noted over the weekend that Jeremy lives by his word - MP with the lowest expences claims for years. Nolic

[Stanley]

I noted that as well Comrade. The more I learn about him the better I like him. Problem is of course that he said earlier he didn't want to be leader, all he was doing was giving a left wing alternative....
I see Cameron has been reading Private Eye, he has made a speech against London being used as a money-laundering centre by purchasing expensive properties. He should also look at the new LLP companies, according to PE they are being used for all sorts of dodgy purposes but Vince Cable said they were OK.
Claire Short gave an interview on her life in politics yesterday on R4. It was an interesting story but one thing in particular grabbed me. She was talking about the change in the use of spin. Her theory is that in days gone by the politician formulated a position and consulted with his advisers as to what there was laid about in the news that could be used to reinforce his thesis. Claire says that nowadays she suspects that it is the spin doctors who initiate by pointing out a good opportunity to score a point and the politician then creates a message to take advantage of the ploy. I reckon that sounds about right, just think how often we see a politician react to what is in the media by plaiting it into their message. Cameron in Singapore going on about oligarchs buying houses is a good example.... there was a TV programme about it recently. Just who is setting the agenda?

[Stanley]

An interesting interview on World Service this morning with a Tory journalist who tried to register as a £3 voter with Labour. I think he failed but probably because in the section of the application that asked for his reasons he put 'to bring about the downfall of the Labour Party'. However he said that he had no doubt other Tories were adopting the same ploy on the basis that a 'Left Wing' Labour party couldn't possibly win a general election. During the interview he labelled Corbyn 'Communist'!
All I can say is that a) he has a remarkably old-fashioned and simplistic view of politics and b) good on him and other Tories who increase Corbyn's chances! My reason is that what he sees as 'Communist' is simply old-fashioned transparency about the ills he sees in society. If this means he is 'Communist' so was Beveridge and the whole of the 1945 Labour Government! From what I can see Corbyn has tapped a deep vein of discontent in the electorate who can see through the present Project.
I also heard an interview with a construction boss in the NE who, commenting on the disappointing level of activity in the construction industry pointed out that the drop in activity outside London and the SE was far greater than the figures suggest as activity in those areas is so high. He also said that the regeneration of the North was a myth, now the election is over the truth is emerging, none of the projected improvements are going forward, they are not even in the planning stage. He advised Cameron and Osborne to stop wearing high vis jackets and hard hats and holding a trowel because construction workers they ain't!
This came to mind when I saw a TV clip of Ossie last night in high vis and hard hat supposedly tightening a nut on a large piece of machinery with a big spanner...... As if...... This presentation ploy has become a cliché!
Later.... Walking is good for thinking and this morning I was thinking about the man who called Corbyn a 'Communist'. These people have never read the original Communist Manifesto and equate it with the corrupted versions of Communism that drove the repressive regimes in Russia, China and others. My reaction when I first read the manifesto was how similar it is to early Christianity and I am not alone. When you think about it Christianity has been corrupted as well, I don't think for one minute that Christ would approve of some of the excesses we see today. Marx would have the same reaction to the modern repressive Communist systems.
Calling a passionate social democrat like Corbyn a 'Communist' shows that the speaker is locked into attitudes passed down to him that he has never questioned. I'm afraid this trait is very common in all belief systems including party politics. It's a shame and a bit of re-education would be a fine thing..... Perhaps all shades of opinion could start by reading the history!

[Tripps]

"corrupted versions of Communism that drove the repressive regimes in Russia, China and others. "

I've heard these arguments of this type, on the radio in the last few days -

Q. Show me anywhere where communism has been successful. Mention of Venezuela etc.

A. That's because it has never properly been applied. (Dave Spart Nellist.)

Reply. So if true, then we must rely on a totally untried system for our future?

PS the election for Labour leader is not until September -
plenty of time for 'events dear boy'

[Pluggy]

I'm deeply suspicious of of the old labour left, but I'd never go so far as to say or imply that its adherents are Communists. I would agree old labour policies would never win an election now. Too few trade union members and too many people running their own business for them to hold much credence these days. When you're self employed, exploitation of workers, working hours, strikes, pension arrangements, protecting people from the excesses of their employers and providing a safety net for when they get sacked, dismissed etc, etc, etc becomes pretty meaningless. The state becomes the last place you look for salvation, and the smaller it is, the better.

[PanBiker]

Just one comment here regarding the so called Labour left. I prefer to refer to the doctrine as Socialism which was the actual flavour of the Government in 1945. It should be remembered that these socialist principles were good enough to pull the country out of a lot more debt than we are in now and set it on the road to recovery, rebuild the infrastructure and move towards full employment by training a massive number of returning servicemen into skilled trades. At the same time setup and provide the welfare state and initiate the NHS for medical care at the point of need.

It's clear that the policies by successive "right wing" governments have got us into the state that we are presently in. Maybe a good old injection of socialism will be a breath of fresh air, it's not been tried for the best part of 70 years. No reason for anyone to be unemployed, there are too many holes in the road and we don't have enough houses.

[Stanley]

David, I agree and endorse the answer 'it has never been tried'. The same could be said for the original Christian ethos. The thing to remember about the inception of Communism is that its roots are in the problems set out by Marx in Das Kapital so it was a perfectly logical proposal in the 19th century. Many of these problems persist today and so some of the founding principles, applied properly, still make sense. This modified concept is at the root of the Labour movement and came to its full flowering in 1945. As Ian says, we should not forget that it was this shift in priorities from the status quo arguments of reactionaries on the right to modern socialist principles that improved the quality of life for all (including the reactionaries....) dragged us out of the post war depression and contributed a great deal to the society we have today. With all its faults I prefer it to the laisser faire attitude of the right which would like to see us regress. That's what is happening now but there will be a reaction, just as there was at the end of the 19th century. So, on the whole, I agree with Ian, it's obvious that the present Tory policies are completely out of step with even the right wing economists and commentators and despite the spin, the 'economic miracle' is so badly balanced and fragile, founded as it is on outdated 'Sound Money' principles and fuelled by private debt, that a gradual shift to more 'socialist' principles would almost certainly be a good thing because it would result in a stop to the erosion of disposable incomes, raise consumption and GDP and as Ian says, could result in more employment at the lower levels of skill on living wages.
That's why I favour Corbyn and incidentally, Alexis Tsipras and Syriza as well. Their stated policies are to attack inequality and that is by far the greatest long term threat we face at the moment. As for 'electability', I'm not sure if that is important, Far too much of the current Labour leadership debate is focussed on that, exactly the same mistake Blair made. There are other ways of shifting policy than holding the actual power. Look at the make-up of Parliament at the moment, if all the non-Tory members combined in a proper opposition they could start now!

[Tizer]

An interesting article by the BBC's Mark Mardell: `Labour leadership: Beware the muddled middle' LINK

[Tripps]

According to Paddy Power Jeremy Corbin is now a warm (11/10) favourite. Cooper and Burnham both 9/4 Kendal is now double carpet.

Looks like Jeremy had better order a nice new donkey jacket and Lenin cap for the cenotaph in November.