How Much is a Corbyn?

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

None of the pretenders is up to the job. Labour has a very weak front bench at the moment. David Milliband will be back for the next election. With DC standing down. It'll certainly be a heavyweight contest. DM will return a better person too after his stint outside of politics. Which is the problem for many MP's these days. All text book theory and no practical life skills.

This really does seem to be a problem for Labour. Of the four leadership candidates, one has had a career in academia and the rest have never done anything except politics.

Of the likely Tory candidates, two (Bozza and Osborne) had careers as journalists and one (May) spent years in finance before entering politics. Cameron was in marketing/PR I think(??).

For all the sneering about the Tories being 'Toffs' and out of touch, it's the Labour side that are stuffed full of career politicians at the top.

Blair, the only Labour leader to lead the party to a majority for 40 years, was a lawyer before entering politics. I don't think that the UK has ever voted in a career politician as PM from memory.

Generali

Interesting piece in the FT which raised a point that hadn't even crossed my mind:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/311c4e18-426e-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html

In short, there is now no good outcome for Labour. But gleeful Tories should worry about the damage to the body politic, too. An absence of serious opposition cannot be healthy in a system that already concentrates power in the executive. It also raises questions of protocol: should the government share sensitive information about national security with the opposition leader, as is the convention? If Mr Corbyn’s economic policies are quaint, his outlook on foreign policy is more troubling, as is some of the company he keeps in the anti-war movement.

How can you seriously share intelligence about terrorists with a bloke that hangs out with terrorists?

Mistermeaner

I don't think they have to do that do they? Thats a governance decision to try to present a unified front to outside threats, not ideal but providing you got a majority you can still push stuff through.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I don't think they have to do that do they? Thats a governance decision to try to present a unified front to outside threats, not ideal but providing you got a majority you can still push stuff through.

I can't recall of the last time this happened though. I bet antrobus knows.

Mistermeaner

There was back bench rebellion over Iraq I think (on both sides)- clearly not all information is shared with all mp's and people will be more inclined to ignore a whip on some stuff. Look how all that turned out too

I guess the more tricky stuff is things like the stop and search powers and the internet snooping.

Got to go, a black van has just turned up and someone is knocking on my door......

Moby

Generali wrote: »

How can you seriously share intelligence about terrorists with a bloke that hangs out with terrorists?

What exactly is your evidence for this?

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

...In addition he will tax the rich more and cut Trident. However, the main source of money would be via printing money, rather than QE so it can be used for public investment rather than paying off the Casino banksters and raising asset values....

The policy of printing money to fund government deficits has such a successful track record now doesn't it?

Oh yes, and not one penny of QE was used to pay off the "Casino banksters". The banking sector's holdings of gilts were greater after QE than they were before QE.

cepheus wrote: »

..Higher inflation & interest rates will lead to lower house prices making it cheaper to buy, rent and move up properties, and less government money used to subsidise greedy landlords.... .

Higher inflation leads to lower house prices? Don't be silly. If you're going to be printing money and driving up prices, people will be falling over themselves to exchange their depreciating money for a nice durable asset such as a house.

cepheus wrote: »

....Increased growth due to more money being spent (the poorer half spend proportionately more and don't hide it offshore) will yield more tax money still.....

If you knew anything about economics, you would know that is a "statistical illusion". And if you want to know which economist called it a "statistical illusion", it would be your favourite economist, Paul Krugman.:)

antrobus

cells wrote: »

... Ed managed to hold it together up to the vote.....

Ed M might not have been able to eat a bacon sandwich, but you have to say this for him; he did manage to (just about) keep the party united.

cells wrote: »

...Would the more centre ground of labor spilt? What can they actually do, split and form another centre left party?...

Yes and yes.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I can't recall of the last time this happened though. I bet antrobus knows.

What's the question?

Is it about vetting? Because MI5 does vet potential politicians, and if you are deemed a "security risk" you tend not to be offered a government job. Goodness knows what would happen if a potential PM was judged a security risk.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

What's the question?

Is it about vetting? Because MI5 does vet potential politicians, and if you are deemed a "security risk" you tend not to be offered a government job. Goodness knows what would happen if a potential PM was judged a security risk.

The question is which (if any) leader of HM's Loyal Opposition was denied access to military/intelligence information because they can't be trusted not to give it away?

My guess is none or perhaps MacDonald or one of those earlier Labour leaders.