Prime Minister Corbyn???

[Saracen]

There's only any point in Germany exporting to countries if those countries pay for the exports.

I'd like a nice Mercedes, so maybe Germany can sell me one, then provide me with a loan to pay for it. When I default on the loan because I can't (and never could) afford it, they can provide me with another loan (which I still can't afford) to pay off the first loan, and for my new home extension and kitchen. Oh, and Germany .... I still want a loan for that cruise. Be sure to thank your taxpayers for funding my lifestyle, and I'm so glad I could afford to retire early so I can have the time for the cruise.

And, Germany, aren't you grateful that I helped you by providing a nice 'market' for your exports.

[Saracen]

....

Can actually see Corbyn doing far better than the tories want him to - as he appears to be on the same road as the SNP.

Could be. I wouldn't like to call it.

But, how well do Tories want him to do? I suspect it's as well as possible, short of winning a General Election, and that latter isn't, of course, decided by Labour voters but by the electorate as a whole. I'd think there was a warning in Labour, in the form of unions, foisting a mildly left leader on the party, who then tacked left a bit, only to see the electorate tack right a bit from a coalition to a somewhat uninspiring overall majority.

I suspect that short of that, short of being PM, the Tories are delighted with the notion of Corbyn doing as well as possible because they think that, first, it makes Labour unelectable, and second, it might tear them apart, thereby putting the Tories in power for quite a while. There are already rumours of a potential SDP-style break-up, and according to BBC news, no fewer than eight shadow cabinet ministers saying they would not serve in a Corbyn cabinet (assuming, of course, they'd even be invited to).

Labour are, frankly, showing all the signs of going through the kind of internal psychosis, schizophrenia even, and mental breakdown that the Tories did after Blair's '97 victory. And it took the Tories years to recover from that, and the public years after that to begin to trust them.

The events leading to the '97 loss, the Thatcher arrogance, Major and the 'bastards' with their internal and semi-public dissent and wranglings, and so on, are beginning to look like amateur hour compared to the very public infighting, schisms, name-calling and intense navel-gazing that Labour are currently self-indulging in.

At the time, lots of Tories, and not a few commentators, regarded their divisions as an existential threat. The same is now true, with bells on, of Labour if they can't get their act sorted out, because right now, it's blindingly clear that they can't even agree among themselves what they for, what they stand for, never mind how to go about it.

They need to pull their collective heads out of their you-know-where, and take an objective look, from the outside in, at the laughing stock they are making of tbemselves or odds are the public won't trust them next time no matter who wins.

It's not even really just that they're fighting among themselves. It's the way they're fighting.

[HalloweenJack]

the breakdown from the loss in 2010 has only just started - they thought they had a chance in 2015 (with ukip polling strongly , well the pollsters got it very wrong) - after all it wasn't a true tory government (and its sad to see how much of a brake the libdems did put on the tories) - so now is labours fall apart , the slaughter in Scotland and sadly the unions showing just how much hatred is aimed at them


if corbyn can tell the unions were to go - that's the first and best step he could make.

[Saracen]

....

if corbyn can tell the unions were to go - that's the first and best step he could make.

If.

Big word, unfortunately, for such a small word.

Also, of course, if he wants to tell them where to go. Judging by his performance on Marr, I doubt it. I think he's pretty much in lock-step with the far left end of the union leadership.

[SeriousSam]

I noticed that there were several articles in the papers today discussing the upsurge in Labour membership ahead of the leadership vote. The inference being that left wing militants are taking advantage of the situation (£3 pound fee) to put in place a leader that they "nominally" support. Now what effect Corbyn getting elected leader would have on the Labour party is up for debate, but if reports are to believed it will create a very large schism. Several shadow cabinet members clearly stating that they would not work for him, assuming they were even asked...

In some respects this has been a long time coming with the Blair vs Brown antagonism merely obfuscating the underlying rift, i.e. pragmatists vs. ideologues. It is an interesting conundrum; shift with the electorate or stick to your principles. Some would argue that it comes down to whether you want to be in power or the opposition, with negative connotations being thrown at each side from the other. Personally I am of the opinion that it goes deeper than that, to the very question of whether some of their core beliefs are even relevant in the modern world, especially in the case of those more on the left. As a consequence to my mind it doesn't matter who wins the leadership contest as the in-fighting will still go on. Arguably a split my be the best thing that could happen, so that both sides can finally stand where they want to be. In the long run having a more pragmatic centre left party would be good for the country, but that is a LONG way down the line based on how long it takes to regain electoral trust.

Anyway, the wider issue for me though is that we are and likely will end up in a situation of having a weak opposition, which generally allows some of the excesses of power to creep into the government. As it stands the only significant voice opposing the Conservatives is the SNP and they are all too easily led up the garden path by Osborne's machinations. So whilst I don't disagree with the objective of a significantly smaller state, I do have concerns about how we will get there and what shape it takes. Not having a broad spectrum of ideas thrown into "the pot" generally ends up in myopic thinking which leads to trouble...

[HalloweenJack]

the problem with a left wing candidiate and support of the unions is perception - look at the vocal disruption the militant unions cause - yetaccording to

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...4_-_Tables.xls

less than 10% of the entire population of the UK are a member of a union.

so when the actions of the few disrupt the many , you stick a pro union leader of a party and the other 90% wont be voting for them.

I find myself agreeing with Saracen on this - Labour wont get back in with a left wing leader. great for headlines and talking points , but unless they break away from unions , that's it for them.

[TheAnimus]

There are genuine concerns regarding the NHS, corporate influence, foreign policy etc that Labour can make inroads on the Government on and If the UK leaves the EU

What I find odd about this list is that it's missed the single biggest issue for everyone I know who isn't retired.

Housing.

Last three years my income has changed drastically to what it was, but before I'd saved and bought a flat the moment I could get the 95% mortgage to let me. This was back in 2007. The last three years my flat has 'made' more money than I have. This is utterly ridiculous.

The biggest jumps of course where under Labour. Corbyn could actually act a change on housing that would really benefit people. How can a 2 bed flat, in zone 4, be worth 20+ times median wage. How the hell? That's 4 people earning median wage to get a mortgage.

In London this is such a huge issue, yet completely ignored by left and right alike. Mostly because the leftish solutions we've seen from the Green party remind me of when I was struggling on a maths assignment. I'd just squiggle my handwriting as poorly legible as possible and then suddenly the right answer would appear at the end.

We've had huge population growth, international and domestic. Labour have told us that you are racist if you object to this. We've got protection orders on land so we can't build on it. So demand has gone up, but supply hasn't been able to change. We've seen opposition for mass rapid transit from all sides, mostly because they devolve into pork barrelling.

I think that if Labour want to stand a chance of getting the above median wage London voters, they could do so by tackling this. I found it odd, chatting to someone who is earning £45k that he has less money in his pocket than someone who is earning £18k, but gets an entire house paid for. There is a large middle class element who have to spend a significant portion on rent, driven to sharing smaller spaces. These are the most likely swing vote labour could get.

[yamangman]

... but about 35% of the working-age population, which is probably what you want to compare it to .

the problem with a left wing candidiate and support of the unions is perception - look at the vocal disruption the militant unions cause - yetaccording to

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...4_-_Tables.xls

less than 10% of the entire population of the UK are a member of a union.

so when the actions of the few disrupt the many , you stick a pro union leader of a party and the other 90% wont be voting for them.

I find myself agreeing with Saracen on this - Labour wont get back in with a left wing leader. great for headlines and talking points , but unless they break away from unions , that's it for them.

[HalloweenJack]

... but about 35% of the working-age population, which is probably what you want to compare it to .

working age population is 39 million out a total uk population of 64 million


its more like 20% so 4 in 5 are not in a union , yet are affected by the actions of the minority = they wont vote for someone closely allied to making there lives a misery.

[yamangman]

There's certainly every chance I'm wrong but 39 million sounds high I have to say.

[HalloweenJack]

http://www.agediscrimination.info/st...opulation.aspx

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...n-wb-data.html

[opel80uk]

And, of course, Greece was free to abandon austerity and spend what it liked. It just can't expect to continually borrow from other people to do it. Any loan requires two parties - one to borrow, and one to lend. Do you not think the one doing the lending is entitled to set the terms under which they're prepared to do so, at the least to try to ensure SOME chance of getting repaid at some point?

To a point yes. But the lender has an obligation also to lend responsibly. From the moment the decision was made to accept Greece into the Eurozone, that lending responsibility went out the window and the reason for that was not because Germany didn't know it was irresponsible, of course they did, but because they felt the benefits to Germany of having Greek type economies in the Eurozone would outweigh the cons. Now if the EU was simply an financial arrangement, like a bank and a lender, then the answer would be obvious - no more loans and good luck, but it's more complex than that. The EU project is not, despite the last few weeks, simply about economics but more encompassing, or so we're told at least, especially by Germany. So it's more akin to lending to a sibling. Sure, you might take the attitude that if they don't pay back the first loan you given them you would refuse to help them again, but it doesn't always work like that, especially if you get to see up close the hardship not helping (or bailing) them out will mean. Throw into the mix that the Governing party of Greece was only recently elected and stood, partly, on a platform of ensuring people pay their taxes and contribute fairly so that it wouldn't have to borrow in the future, so it's not as if they weren't actually doing something to try and help resolve the issue. And also, they never said they wouldn't pay it back, but that it was unsustainable in it's current form.

Furthermore, Germany wants to have it's cake and eat it. In Ireland, when privately owned banks were going to go bust, the Government said it would guarantee deposits of 100,000Eu's, and look at the viability of guaranteeing all private deposits. Then the EU, specifically Germany, asked what about bondholders? Ireland, quite rightly, stated that senior Bondholders, of which German institutes made up a large proportion, had nothing to do with the Irish Government or Irish taxpayer, and that if the banks went bust they would have to take a hit like everyone else, which to my untrained brain is capitalism working, right? Wrong, apparently. A minister, Leo Varadker, stated that the Troika explained that if Senior bondholders were burned, then 'a bomb would go off, and the bomb will go off in Dublin, not in Frankfurt.' So the Troika, at Germany's behest, strong armed the Irish Government into accepting a bailout that they didn't need, for a debt they were not morally, or legally obliged to pay, all to ensure that German (and to a lesser degree French) bondholders didn't lose out, with the threat of financial catastrophe if the Irish didn't play ball.

Read Philippe Legrain's European Spring book for the insiders view. Germany do not behave like a bank, they behave like a cross between Wonga and a back street money lender threatening to break your arms. The only difference is, in EU terms, they're the only bank on the high street. Yes they write the cheques, but it shouldn't be forgotten that this only has come about through generous terms given after reunification, and a Eurozone market designed to benefit Germany. I doubt whether Greece is a big Mercedes customer, but there are plenty of rich markets outside the Eurozone that are attracted to German products precisely because the Euro is kept weak, by countries like Greece. Does that mean Greece should just be able to spend and borrow indefinitely? No, of course not. But Germany shouldn't forget who helped them up on to that high horse either.

[SeriousSam]

... but about 35% of the working-age population, which is probably what you want to compare it to .

I'd argue that you should be comparing it to the voting population as they are the ones potentially affected by the unions political interference. In any case there are plenty of people who are nominally in a union for the benefits but do not share their politics. The most obvious example being London based civil servants and the PCSU. However, the key question is how many people are against direct union involvement in politics and are in some way influenced by that in terms of voting. That is much more difficult to determine...

[BobF64]

I'd argue that you should be comparing it to the voting population as they are the ones potentially affected by the unions political interference. In any case there are plenty of people who are nominally in a union for the benefits but do not share their politics.

Which is why the unions are against minimum ballot requirements, they know they have a lot of passive members who they require for financial reasons, but who dont vote and take little active interest.

[opel80uk]

What I find odd about this list is that it's missed the single biggest issue for everyone I know who isn't retired.

Housing.

Last three years my income has changed drastically to what it was, but before I'd saved and bought a flat the moment I could get the 95% mortgage to let me. This was back in 2007. The last three years my flat has 'made' more money than I have. This is utterly ridiculous.

The biggest jumps of course where under Labour. Corbyn could actually act a change on housing that would really benefit people. How can a 2 bed flat, in zone 4, be worth 20+ times median wage. How the hell? That's 4 people earning median wage to get a mortgage.

In London this is such a huge issue, yet completely ignored by left and right alike. Mostly because the leftish solutions we've seen from the Green party remind me of when I was struggling on a maths assignment. I'd just squiggle my handwriting as poorly legible as possible and then suddenly the right answer would appear at the end.

We've had huge population growth, international and domestic. Labour have told us that you are racist if you object to this. We've got protection orders on land so we can't build on it. So demand has gone up, but supply hasn't been able to change. We've seen opposition for mass rapid transit from all sides, mostly because they devolve into pork barrelling.

I think that if Labour want to stand a chance of getting the above median wage London voters, they could do so by tackling this. I found it odd, chatting to someone who is earning £45k that he has less money in his pocket than someone who is earning £18k, but gets an entire house paid for. There is a large middle class element who have to spend a significant portion on rent, driven to sharing smaller spaces. These are the most likely swing vote labour could get.

You're right, but the problem is the most sensible course of action is to build. Whether it be on protected sites, or extending London, London needs more homes. The issue with that is that a project that size needs capital investment and as soon as a Labour says they are going to spend, the media frenzy begins. Throw in that any significant increase in housing stock would almost certainly hit landlords, and you have a large, and rich, lobby group that see future profits going down. Labours budget plan was certainly better costed than the Conservatives going into the General election, and the Tories even went in with an ambiguous 12Bn welfare cut figure with no details on where the 12Bn would come from, yet it was Labour that was seen as the biggest risk with the economy. They are, in this regards, tainted goods and they would (or should) be extremely wary of standing on a platform with a large spend project at it's core.

Limiting the number of foreign landlords (although given EU laws, foreign in the UK will have to mean outside the EU, for now), getting rid of tax incentives for landlords who own multiple properties, Scrapping right-to-buy scheme and even limiting the number of properties a person can won in certain areas would all go to alleviate the housing the problem, but until the parties stop playing politics with this issue, it will continue. And remember, whilst there is still social housing stock to be sold off, there isn't really anything in solving it for the Conservative party at the moment.

[opel80uk]

the problem with a left wing candidiate and support of the unions is perception - look at the vocal disruption the militant unions cause - yetaccording to

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...4_-_Tables.xls

less than 10% of the entire population of the UK are a member of a union.

so when the actions of the few disrupt the many , you stick a pro union leader of a party and the other 90% wont be voting for them.

I find myself agreeing with Saracen on this - Labour wont get back in with a left wing leader. great for headlines and talking points , but unless they break away from unions , that's it for them.

But the Unions help fund Labour. Unless Labour plan on raising the 50% of their income that the Unions give them from elsewhere, then 'that's it for them' anyway.

And you are looking at the figures in a simplistic way. Whilst only 10% of the public may be members of Unions, that figure is almost certainly influenced by the fact that many workplaces have either inneficient or no Union representative. That doesn't mean that 90% don't, or wouldn't support Unions simply because they are not in one. After the winter of discontent, when public support for Unions was arguably at an all time low, and with the Trade Unions far closely linked to Labour then now, O'Callaghan still managed to get 37% of the vote. And that was when the Unions had far more influence than now.