“A kinder politics, a more caring society”

Labour’s slogan from yesterday is one Conservatives can welcome as well. What was odd about the conference was the statement that Labour will not now stoop to personal abuse, and will debate in a grown up way. This was juxtaposed in the same speech with old anti Conservative rhetoric that was harsh and untrue. We had to listen to the lie that Conservatives seek to “protect the few  and to tell all the rest of us to accept what we are given.” That was a bit rich, when this government is all about getting more people out of low income and off benefits, by creating the conditions for more jobs and for better paid jobsand encouraging more home ownership.  One of the main themes of today’s Conservatives is to boost real wages and the productivity which underwrites them. Working smarter for more money is exactly what we are striving to achieve for the many.

I like the idea of a grown up debate. Could we start by all using the true figures of public spending, which show modest real growth in public spending over the last five years? Can we acknowledge that real wages are now rising and  more people are in work? Could Labour understand that demanding more homes for people whilst  demanding more migrants come to the country makes it difficult for housebuilding to catch up? Do they accept that more homes are now being built than in the later years of their government?

A grown up debate means recognising that  both Conservatives and Labour want higher living standards for all, and proper care and support for those who cannot support themselves. The arguments about means are important and can be fierce. Doubting people’s aims is not part of a new politics, but part of the old negative spin politics that many dislike, and which gets in the way of understanding.

I thought the bits of the speech that Mr Corbyn borrowed from Mr Heller were well written, but displayed their age from the pre kinder politics era. If you want a new kind of politics, it helps to write it in your own words and show us how it can be done. As readers here know, I seek to avoid abuse and dishonest statements of the attitudes and actions of others.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

106 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    You say:- One of the main themes of today’s Conservatives is to boost real wages and the productivity which underwrites them. Working smarter for more money is exactly what we are striving to achieve for the many.

    So why does this government nobble industry with so much tax, absurd tax complexity, moronic employments laws, very high rates tax, over priced green crap energy, work place pensions, pay controls, absurdly complex VAT and PAYE, restrictive and slow planning, lack of competition in banking, OTT health and safety and endless other anti-productive nonsense at every single turn? What happened to the promise of deregulation we have just have more and more of it and more and more tax complexity too?

    Corbyn, of course, richly deserves personal abuse as his policies would harm everyone and especially the poor. It seem he is actually dim enough to believe these policies would work. He proposes rent controls which are merely a direct theft from landlords, he says the government will thus make a profit by paying less in housing benefits.

    Well if you thieve off people you usually make a totally immoral “profit” in the short term. The damage inflicted however is that people will stop investing in rental property and will not rent property out at all. You will also get less in income tax and corporation tax from the landlords. Money and the hard working will leave and pay their taxes elsewhere. Many may have to default on loans and mortgages causing further bank problems and repossessions.

    Confidence in business and investing in anything with a government that feels they can steal of anyone at random will be rather scarce.

    But of course Osborne is already doing this theft but in a lighter way, with his attacks on legitimate interest deductions, his raids on private pension pots and even thinking he should decide everyone’s wage increases in a Ted Heath mode. They are both the same, differing only in degree. They both deserve huge abuse for being so stupid and misguided and for inflicting pointless damage on the economy and jobs. Even the threat of Corbyn in five years does damage to investment even today.

    The Corbyn strategy is absurd and hugely damaging, so why is Osborne merely doing the same but in a lighter way? Even Osborne’s lighter version is extremely harmful to growth already.

    • lojolondon
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      I will tell you why – because every time that George Osborne tries to improve things, the Biased MSM, led by the BBC, will try to spin it as ‘money for his rich mates’. The fact that Gordon Brown kept the 40% higher tax rate for 12 1/2 years, and only increased the rate when he thought he would lose the election speaks volumes for people with a brain, but the Labour leadership keep ignoring the facts and presenting the reduction of higher rate taxation as somehow dishonest and corrupt. Why the conservatives have allowed the BBC to continue to violate the broadcasting charter with their Socialist, anarchist and virulently anti-Conservative agenda absolutely remains a mystery to me. Fear and cowardice can be the only explanation, but if ever there was a case for saving £6 Billion a year (or £60 billion over ten years!) this would seem to be it!

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

        It speaks volumes for people with a brain, provided their brain was supplied with enough of a memory for them to at least think to do a quick google to check back to see what Brown did even if they don’t themselves remember all the details off hand. But most people seem to have short memories.

      • Bob Nozhitch
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

        “Why the conservatives have allowed the BBC to continue to violate the broadcasting charter with their Socialist, anarchist and virulently anti-Conservative agenda …”

        Could it be that the Conservatives are more democratic than the (autocratic ed) you?
        You have never lived in a communist country, have you? I guess that why you can write such things and not be red with shame at the stupidity of what you just wrote.

        • Anonymous
          Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

          Bob – What the BBC is churning out is 1984 mind control. From the way so called ‘news’ is couched, to the production of drama and comedy. Often the very reverse of reality is broadcast by them.

          As for the original post on kinder politics. Having just watched Corbyn’s political broadcast where he said “we will strive to end poverty” that striving will never end, with a perpetual flow of poor and ‘unequal’ people.

          The last thing Labour want is an end to poverty. Without it they are nothing. They thrive on struggle and deprivation.

          I don’t wish to live in a communist country, but that is where Labour and their broadcasting wing – the BBC – seems to be taking us.

          When the BBC finances itself without its state enforced tax then it can continue to be as biased against several of our parties (and an several classes of people) as it likes.

          The licence fee should be scrapped unless the BBC stops assuming the position of the political opposition.

          • Bob
            Posted October 1, 2015 at 7:32 am | Permalink

            @Anonymous

            “The licence fee should be scrapped “

            The Licence Fee has been scrapped in my household because I am not prepared to fund the subversion of the United Kingdom.

            The younger generation are moving over to “on demand” services which do not require a TV Licence, despite the BBC’s attempt to pull them in with their trashy BBC3 channel. That’s why the BBC are now pushing for the TV Licence to be replaced with a charge on Council Tax.

            The supporters of the BBC are constantly spouting off about how much everybody loves the BBC and yet they are terrified with the prospect of competing on a level playing field with ITV, Sky and Virgin. What are the BBC afraid of?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

          I remember an exchange of newspaper letters some years ago when a prominent LibDem councillor tried to justify the bias of the BBC on the basis that it was essential to compensate for the opposing bias of most of the press. He couldn’t accept that people freely chose to buy those newspapers which he disliked, rather than the lower circulation Guardian, but nonetheless they were being forced by law to pay for the BBC to deliberately and constantly act as a megaphone for the Guardian in blatant contravention of its Charter, therefore legal, obligation to be politically impartial.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      Alastair Heath claims today that Corbyn is wrong and the UK public backs capitalism by 65pc to 28pc in a poll.

      Why given this do we have to suffer Osborne’s wage controls, his huge tax increases, an energy policy driven by a mad religion and damaging grants, the dysfunctional state run NHS, very poor state run schools, government legalised theft from landlords, pension mugging and endless government waste anywhere you look?

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      Lifelogic – High tax is what business is going to have to pay if it insists on importing a below-living-wage workforce that needs in-work top-ups, and has to rent in a high priced property market cornered by greedy landlords.

      Don’t take this tax nobbling personally. Even moderately paid people are being subject to it.

      “But the education system is not turning out the workforce we need.”

      Then stop voting for a party that does not support selective education.

      • Bob
        Posted October 1, 2015 at 7:58 am | Permalink

        @Anonymous

        “Then stop voting for a party that does not support selective education”

        As far as I am aware it’s only ukip that would lift the ban on grammar schools. The Tories agree with Labour on this issue.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 1, 2015 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

          I think that the Tories actually shut down more grammar schools than Labour. The last thing they wanted was the state helping middle class boys and girls to rise up and compete effectively with the children of the upper classes which they were having educated privately.

  2. alan jutson
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    Your point about everyone using official figures is a good one.

    Problem is many figures quoted from different official sources/departments often vary.

    Perhaps it would be good if all figures came from the same official source, so that at least any error should be consistent.

    If we could have a sensible grown up debate without the lies/spin and insults, that would certainly be an improvement, and perhaps may start to engage the Publics interest once more in factual debate.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    Why has Osborne allowed a modest growth in public spending, when what is clearly needed for a stronger economy is a huge cut in the endless government waste and a similar large cut in taxation for the productive?

    Do the Tories not want the economy to grow strongly and thus produce an increasing tax base?

    • mickc
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Yes, Osborne preaches one thing, yet does the opposite…

  4. Iain Gill
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    Correct again John.
    You only need to spend some time on sink estates, or with the real working classes on big sites, or indeed in the old working mens clubs to realise a few truths. One is that on immigration the political labour party is completely at odds with the people who have voted them into seats, and on this they are very vulnerable. They have gone through various iterations of style, from labelling anyone wanting to discuss immigration as racist, to trying to “rub our noses in diversity”, and so on, none of which has been supported out in the real world. If the media actually reflected people like me, and the real voters, the labour position on immigration and the migrant crisis would be in big trouble.
    (unchecked u tube deleted ed)
    You are correct on public spending too, it’s not under control, and we are not in real austerity at all. Again there is no public support for lots of the spending going on, starting with overseas aid, through to EU contribution, through to lots of the waste we can see all around us. Sunderland council have spent millions lighting up the sea front like Blackpool, have blocked off a significant part of the city to normal traffic (stopping the real wealth creators getting on with their lifes, and disrupting the residents normal life) they don’t seem to be under any cost cutting pressure – as a simple example.
    There is also no support for the “take it or leave it” style of public service provision favoured by the labour elite, real voters want the power in the patients hands when they interact with healthcare providers, they want real buying power in the relationship with their childrens school, real people do not want decision making in bureaucrats hands they want decision making over their own life in their own hands. And real people can see that it’s only lots of small buying decisions by consumers that forces supermarkets to optimise and change to meet the changing needs of consumers and want to be able to collectively exert similar pressure on schools and hospitals to improve.
    As for a kinder politics what is kind about sustaining sink estates miles away from any possible jobs market for that volume of people? What is kind about putting so many barriers in the way of people moving to where they jobs are? What is kind about importing masses of immigrants to live in overcrowded conditions in the South East?
    Their narrative on equality and chances for all is good at a high level. But in detail they don’t mean it. They send their own kids to public school. They are happy to support school selection based on religious segregation and richer parents being able to move house closer to the better schools, i.e. catchment area nonsense. The have put in place masses of gender and race legislation while not doing a thing about the class and regional accent based prejudice which is the main problem in our society today.
    So in lots of ways they are weak and vulnerable. They are sure vulnerable if a Conservative leader like Mrs T emerged who had more breath of experience across different social demographics, and a good feel for what real people think.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Much truth in all that. Hypocrisy, envy and stupidity seem to be the driving forces of the left as always.

  5. Richard1
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    Mr Corbyn is a humbug – he asks for a kinder politics while appointing as shadow chancellor a person who has defended terrorist murderers and who makes ‘jokes’ about how he would like himself to murder a political opponent. A ludicrous Labour activist was applauded when saying the Conservative Bill of Rights would mean ‘straight to the gas chambers’. And of course there is the same old drivel about ‘austerity’ when in fact as you point out public spending has been and is still rising. Labour have recruited a group of leftist economists to come up with the theory to back their policies. These are of course the same leftist-‘Keynesian’ economists who predicted 5m unemployed if the Consevatives pursued the policies they did over the last 5 years. No amount of evidence from the UK or elsewhere is enough for these absurd socialists to admit they are and have been wrong. Fortunately as pointed out by the economist Allister Heath, surveys show that the large majority accept that capitalism is the best way of generating prosperity.

    • oldtimer
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      Another activist at the conference was interviewed saying the aim was to “smash the (capitalist) system”. I think that, given the chance, they would reproduce another Venezuela in our time.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:55 am | Permalink

        Given the chance they clearly would. It is bad enough with these faux Tories.

    • Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

      These are of course the same leftist-‘Keynesian’ economists who predicted 5m unemployed if the Consevatives pursued the policies they did over the last 5 years.

      If the Keynesian economists got it wrong , it was in assuming that the Government was going to do what it said it would and cut the budget deficit to zero by the time of the 2015 May election. IF it had done that it would have crashed the economy. 5 million unemployed would have been an underestimate. We’d have been like Greece with unemployment something over 25 %.

      Now, I suppose there are Tories who might ‘blame’ the Lib Dems for not allowing that to happen. They will now be thinking they can have another try now the Lib Dems are back on the opposition benches and are no longer a ‘hindrance’.

      It won’t work any better. The budget deficit is simply caused by the desire of the users of £ to save them. At present those savers are the central banks of the big exporters. It’s our trade deficit which is causing the budget deficit. Cutting spending and raising taxes will only close the budget deficit to the extent that people become too poor to save and too poor to buy the same volume of imports.

      There is absolutely no possibility of the budget deficit being closed, without a crash, unless the government stop selling gilts and let the pound fall as a consequence. These not only finance the budget deficit they cause the pound to become competitively high for our exporters and allow the big exporters of China , Germany and elsewhere to save their pounds rather than spending them on British made goods and services.

      Reply Not so. The plan to get the deficit down relied on large rises in tax revenue which did not materialise, so the government borrowed more instead.Growth was slower than forecast owing to a) the Euro crisis b) continued heavy restrictions on UK bank credit growth.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 1, 2015 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        This is obfuscation. According to this supposedly Keynesian theory (I doubt keynes would have thought much of it) it was ‘cuts’ to govt spending which would cause 5m unemployed. The govt did more or less exactly what it said it would on spending – though as JR points out below more of it had to be financed by borrowing than anticipated due to lower than expected tax revenues, mainly due to the euro crisis. The reason so many ‘Keynesian’ commentators and economists have been proved so wrong is confidence has been restored – and businesses have been happy to hire.

        • Posted October 8, 2015 at 3:27 am | Permalink

          Richard 1

          So you believe that it’s only levels of government spending that matter in Keynesian economics and that the amount taken out of the economy in taxation is disregarded?

          …… JR points out below more of it had to be financed by borrowing than anticipated due to lower than expected tax revenues, mainly due to the euro crisis.

          The reason more had to be borrowed was because the government hadn’t done its sectoral balance calculations correctly. They’d overlooked the effect of a 5% + GDP current account deficit (the trade deficit). Government gets no tax revenue from money leaving the country.

          So if Government runs a budget deficit of 5% of GDP too ALL that extra money is disappearing overseas and has no stimulus effect on the economy.

  6. Jools B
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    John, what’s new about yesterday’s speech? Labour, the real nasty party, have only ever espoused the politics of spite and envy and have never let the truth get in the way of their class war rants and hatred of anyone who dares to do well in life. What struck me more about their mantra is the hypocrisy. Most of what they complain about happened on their watch but again why let the truth get in the way of their spin and lies.

    On a more worrying note, Corbyn’s left wing agenda will probably appeal more to the Scots. The Tories need to get off their a—-es and sort out the English Question asap, and that doesn’t mean English vetoes for English laws or even English votes for English laws but an English legislature for the peoples of England. The alternative is a possible resurge in Scottish Labour come the next election which would see England once again having a Scots dominated Labour party it didn’t vote for foist on it against it’s will.

    • Peter Parsons
      Posted October 1, 2015 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      JoolsB, the English question needs sorting out properly, and the Conservatives are not offering a proper solution. Today, England is governed by a government who secured the votes of only just over 27% of registered English voters.

      Every party bar one is backing a Constitutional Convention, one in which we, the voting public, are consulted on the governance of our country. We don’t need parties with vested interests imposing a solution which suits them, we need a solution which is fair and representative of us, the people.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 1, 2015 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

        Just consult the English in a referendum.

        • Peter Parsons
          Posted October 2, 2015 at 8:09 am | Permalink

          Denis, I would hope and expect that a referendum would be an outcome of such an exercise, however, unlike 2011, it would be a referendum which asks a genuine question (witness how New Zealand went about holding a referendum on changing their system) rather than being one on a compromise no one really wanted in the first place, and which is now used as an argument for maintaining the status quo even though matters such as an English elected assembly or proportionality were not on the table in 2011.

  7. DaveM
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    Well, the old-school Blairites must be despairing, and your party should be rubbing its hands.

    All that’s come out of the Corbyn love-in in Brighton is a bunch of vague tree-hugging concepts that would make Ed Milliband look like a master of statistics and specifics.

    The only people who think the Labour party could form a credible government are those who think the better off will be giving all their money up so we can all dance round in fields full of daisies. (And the BBC of course.)

    In my experience, kind and caring means getting trampled on. So cheer up, John, and start trampling!

  8. forthurst
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    “We had to listen to the lie that Conservatives seek to “protect the few and to tell all the rest of us to accept what we are given.””

    Let’s see now: Conservatives don’t want grammar schools which can provide academically able children whose fathers are not banksters with the wherewithal to experience an education commensurate with their inductive capacities. On that note, historically, most English doctors were educated in English grammar schools, deliberately destroyed by Labour and Conservative governments, but now Conservatives do want to restrict, artificially, the number of English, who would like to train as doctors and have managed to obtain a good education, from access to medical schools allowing just sufficient for themselves to consult privately, whilst foisting the rest of us into the NHS whose recruitment of medics encompasses most of the world including those places where any piece of official documentation can be purchased for the right price.

    Conservatives: guilty as charged.

    Reply Labour repeated their dislike of selective education for people without rich parents. Conservatives are expanding some grammars, and I would like them to do more of that.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      I had a grammar school education. It wasn’t perfect, but it was better than the alternatives at that time, and I’m sure they could work again, because kids haven’t essentially changed as their basic need to learn is still there. We need to get real on education (and much more besides) and lose the ideologically-driven rubbish and the labels some people wish to apply to it.

      Personally, I can’t see anything wrong with taking the best and most proven teaching methods, and applying them right across the board. For instance, if public schools produce better academic results than state schools, then use those methods in the state-run schools to finally give us a workforce that is useful to industry and one that can compete internationally.

      To deny any child a proper education because it might not meet the artificial politically correct criteria of the liberal left, is an absolute nonsense and does no-one any favours. Being the world’s leader in playing on mobile phones is not an aspiration I share. Our kids, and our country deserves better, and to deny them a good education when it is within our gift, is to betray them for the most ridiculous and spurious of reasons. It is irresponsible, and it is gambling with our nation’s future.

      So where’s the new, revised system of education, and the investment we might reasonably expect from a majority Conservative government?

      Tad

      • Iain Gill
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

        Public schools do better for a whole bunch of reasons which are nothing to do with teaching methods. For one they can exclude disruptive pupils easily no questions asked, they do not have to tolerate the level of disruption that state schools do. For two the can run smaller class sizes. For three the have freedom to teach to their own agenda, they are not forced to follow anyone elses curriculum. They can introduce languages from an early age when they are much easier to learn, and use native speakers without the mandatory teaching certificate demanded in the state sector. They can take good candidates as teachers without them needed to have done their year at teacher training indoctrination, so a lot more flexibility in who they hire. They can pay whatever they need to. Its not much to do with teaching methods.

        • Tad Davison
          Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

          That’s pretty much the way to go then Iain. If it works elsewhere, the state schools that continue to fail our most cherished and vital asset, our children, should be brought up to speed. Anything less is a betrayal.

          I used the word ‘methods’ rather loosely, but I’m sure others can see where I’m coming from.

          Tad

          • Iain Gill
            Posted October 1, 2015 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

            Which is fine but proper provision needs to be made for those disruptive pupils. And so on.

        • libertarian
          Posted October 1, 2015 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

          Iain Gill

          Whilst I agree with some of what you say a couple of points.

          Private schools teach the national curriculum . True an individual school may offer a wider range of subjects i.e. Mandarin or Russian.

          Most private schools have slightly smaller class sizes although my kids prep school had 30 in a class . However according to Harvard University Education depart research smaller class size is no indication of likely better performance .

          Whilst you are right they can exclude pupils but if you think parents paying £30k per year don’t ask any questions when their little darling is excluded including right up to lawyers writs then you are mistaken. On the whole though you are generally correct

          • Iain Gill
            Posted October 2, 2015 at 9:55 am | Permalink

            It’s also what they do about disruptive behaviour. If you read Ranulph Fiennes autobiography you will find at school he often climbed the highest school roofs, something that he openly admits would have resulted in expulsion, police being called, and so on in a state school (which is true as that’s what happened at my school). In his school although they were not happy it resulted in a nurturing of his climbing talents, and pointers in that direction. So he ended up a tank officer then special forces officer. There is a lot to this simple example.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      Response to Reply, well according to Conservative home today the Conservatives are rowing back on promises to hand more choice and power over to parents in school selection, and are moving more towards the labour style of allocation and take it or leave it. Cannot be good for the country, or cost effective as a way of trying to keep standards high.

  9. Antisthenes
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Laid back politics sounds very appealing. Certainly the old way is not at all endearing or appropriate. As you rightly point out truth does not make it’s appearance much and spin and distortion or even complete disregard of the facts, being the highest forms of effectiveness are the lowest forms of honesty, have not been banished under Corbyn in, only style has changed. In fact if you listen to the apologies and watch Corbyn and his band of closet revolutionaries honey coat their odious policies and views one knows that politics is going to get dirtier from now on but being made to look more honest and clean. It must be a first, usually people who fear embarrassment etc., but when they get over it come out of the closet but this bunch is going into it until the right time to come out of it again. And that will be when they are in power.

    Certainly politics needs to be more open and honest but the Corbyn way does not do that in anyway that addresses the failings of politics. It still is using the same old methods but is now covering them in a veneer of faux humility and courteousness.

    I have met many Corbyns in my life and the majority have been of the lefty persuasion. They have been to the most part the most charismatic of people but they have also been the most incompetent and complete losers who managed to get by in life by not giving a damn and sponging off others.

  10. mickc
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    All you say is correct. However, I think Corbyn will strike a chord with many voters. He is a change from the slick, spun, stick to the line politics we have had for so long. The continued onslaught on him by much of the MSM has become counter-productive.

    He is a threat which needs to be taken very, very seriously.

  11. Pete
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    If the Conservative government is so keen to get “more people out of low income and off benefits” why does the welfare state keep growing?
    In truth governments are all about increasing dependency so that the recipients of state payouts are very unlikely to vote against larger government.

    Reply Conservative governments do want to get people off welfare into decent work. Welfare bills go up because a) welfare benefit rates have been increased b) more people come to our country from the EU and qualify.

    • ian wragg
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      What about the immigrants from outside the EU who qualify for benefits. Some nationalities have 50% men and 75% women unemployed. It would seem like a lifestyle choice to me. Fully funded by the hapless taxpayer.

  12. Know-Dice
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Watching Corbyn’s carefully choreographed entrance in to the Labour Conference on the BBC this morning – surrounded by 10 or so carefully chosen, politically correctly ethically balanced young people, it’s quite clear that Corbyn is rapidly being assimilated in to the “correct” Labour political machine…that didn’t last long then did it?

    • Know-Dice
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      Must remember not to post until -AFTER- having my morning coffee…

      “ethically” could be then right word!!!

      But, I really meant “ethnically”…

  13. Old Albion
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately we here in England are goverened by what is called a ‘two party adversarial system’
    Too many politicians spend their time slating the other party, instead of concentrating on sensible policies that they would genuinely introduce if in power.
    It’s a very negative system.

  14. Lifelogic
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    I see that the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney is warning of global warming risks to the economy:- “if there is no action now, global warming could become one of the biggest risks to economic stability in the future.” also saying “that while there is time to act on climate change, the window of opportunity is finite and shrinking.”

    What complete and utter drivel. A little warmer (should it ever come) is a net benefit. The real dangers to the economy are from taking the absurd and pointless actions proposed by the green priests, giving us absurdly expensive energy, exporting jobs, misdirecting capital investments and rendering us uncompetitive. All this while not even saving any CO2.

    Also giving us far less wealth to spend on sensible things like flood relief systems, sea walls, better bridges and the likes. Think which will always needed as climate is always variable and always has been. Adapting if and when needed is by far the best strategy.

    Perhaps Carney should concentrate on the bonkers bank slotting rules and bank regulations that are damaging the banks, the economy and their borrowing customers hugely.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34393864

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:56 am | Permalink

      We have already heard this drivel from “do as I say not as I do” Prince Charles with his “100 months to save the World”, some years back. Not many months left now and not even any warming for 17 years or so.

      When will these people just look at the real figures and give up on their silly religion?

    • Mark
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:48 am | Permalink

      It would seem Mr Carney had an ear bashing from his wife, a noted Green.

      • A different Simon
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

        People like that generally have much less to worry about so have to resort to inventing problems .

        High level greens aren’t just interested in de-population for the sake of the worlds resources . They consider the masses genetically inferior and it their duty to get evolution back on track .

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

        Maybe, or maybe he’s paying heed to his spiritual leader, who is one of our most expert climatologists in his spare time from being Pope:

        http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article4439747.ece

        “Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has been named the most influential Catholic in Britain … ”

        Rather like the Mullah of Maidenhead, who is recognised as being a leading expert on the correct interpretation of Islam when she is not tied up being Home Secretary.

        I didn’t know that about Carney before, by the way, I just wondered in view of the Pope’s pronouncements on the subject of climate change.

        • stred
          Posted October 1, 2015 at 8:04 am | Permalink

          Talking of the green elite, ex Labour science minister, Lord Drayson has recommended that we should introduce another scrappage scheme for our diesel cars, like the one Gordon had to get us to buy new efficient diesels. He recommends that we will all have to go over to electric cars instead.

          I had forgotten who this Lord was and looked him up. Apparently, he made millions by selling his flu jab company to the Americans (words left out ed) went into electric cars and races them, and now he seems to be an American citizen too. (re Wiki)

          The previous subject on CO2 this week showed government figures which indicated that particulates had reduced by a factor of 4 since 1970 and NO2 by 3 since 1990. Perhaps the aristocrats of Downing Street could ignore his Lordship’s advice for a while.

    • Pete Stroud
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      All of the urgent emotional Manmade global warmist talk currently in vogue is because of the massive climate change fest due to take place in Paris in December. Obama will be there to seal his legacy on climate change. No doubt our PM will also put in an appearance. The result will probably be another international treaty that will attempt to stifle industry in the developed world, and move more funds to the developing nations.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      Really the governor is lazy and just following group think amongst the elite. He would be better off worrying about the impact over inflated house prices are having, or the out of control immigration, these are much more real and immediate threats. As for world pollution sadly the green movement in all its flavours does not have many answers, certainly they have not faced up to the harsh reality that China and India need a bloomin good talking to.

  15. miami.mode
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    I think Jeremy Corbyn and his views can be summed up in one word – detached.

    He seems to want to turn the Labour Party into a debating society and as for principles, he claims not to be a Marxist but he plainly is – his problem being it’s not Karl but Groucho.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

      Certainly detached from usual Labour voters over immigration.

  16. Bob
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    I see that your leader as just given away £300 million to build some new roads in Jamaica.

    Meantime, Mr Robbie Clark, one of Britain’s oldest surviving prisoners of war who survived Hitler’s 1,000-mile death march across Europe in 1945, faces being forced into a care home against his will after Brent council refused to pay for his home help.

    What a caring society we have.

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:48 am | Permalink

      Bob

      “See that your leader has just given away £300 million……..”

      Why are you surprised, it happens every time he goes abroad.

      I see the EU wants us to pay another £300 odd million extra as well, to help the immigration crisis that Germany encouraged with their promise that 800,000 could come over no problem.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 10:39 am | Permalink

        Oh, so now it’s £300 million, up from the £150 billion that was being mooted a week ago, when I pointed out that the UK has a treaty opt-out not only from all measures taken under the EU’s common immigration and asylum policy but also from all financial consequences thereof, bar any associated increases in the administrative costs of the EU institutions:

        http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/09/24/the-eu-gets-migration-wrong-again/#comments

  17. Bert Young
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    I am disinclined to read or listen to any of the utterances Corbyn makes ; he is a slippery customer who shifts his feet on the ground . Left wingism has no place in my life ; I have always believed in individualism from proven standards . Those who make genuine headway in life do so because they work hard and learn from the mistakes of the past . I don’t know Corbyn from a hole in the ground , but from what has been written and disclosed of him , he is one of the mistakes of the past .

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      If the UK is stupid enough to elect Corbyn in four+ years then they perhaps deserve all they will get.

      Cameron and Osborne are far too loony left for me and the country already.

  18. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    As highlighted on the Today programme this morning the younger vote has become highly engaged by JC’s (he is not the Messiah he is a very dangerous boy) views. When added to the section of the populace who would vote for a pumpkin in Labour colours this might give him the numbers to challenge for power.

    We will build more houses – but then we will fill them with immigrants.

    We will stay in the EU to protect workers’ rights – and maintain the stranglehold big business has on regulations and market entry thus reducing competition in those workers’ conditions

    We will print money to invest in infrastructure – to be given to our cronies just like the Conservatives we criticise

    We will redistribute wealth through taxation and tax credits – redistribute wealth out of the country while targeting anyone earning over £30k per year who is after rich unless that income is delivered through the benefit system.

    We will save money on trident – and invest it in courses of Russian language and Islamic theology so we may assimilate with our new masters.

    Etc.

  19. Bill
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    I agree with your comments. In my view Corbyn is starting on a long public relations exercise in an attempt to improve his own image and that of his party. He does seem to wish to avoid personal abuse – long one of the banes of the left (see Michael Foot’s vindictive diatribes in his Tribune days) – and this is to be commended. He should stick to speaking about his own party rather than trying to tell us what the Conservatives are ‘really’ like.

  20. Mike Stallard
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    I love it!
    Please amuse yourself by re-reading the comments on Labour List where the nice people are the True Labour and everyone else is a *(*(*!**

  21. Tim L
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    John,

    Listening to Labour, you’d think the Conservatives won the election with just 1% of the vote.

    On checking I see you won with 36.9% of the vote share which I guess means an awful lot of people felt sorry for the filthy rich.

    • graham1946
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 10:30 am | Permalink

      It also means almost twice as many don’t.

  22. JM
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    The trouble is that Mr Corbyn and his supporters are pre-programmed to believe that the Conservatives want to do people down. They spout it as a truism without thought. I have yet to meet a politician of any stripe who wants to disadvantage any person. The debate has always been about the means to improve the lot of people. Do you do it by penalising success and insisting on drab state provided and regulated conformity (Labour) or do you set people free to make their own decisions and way and trust them with their own money (Conservative)?

    Meanwhile I suppose it is too much to expect the BBC to challenge the cannards?

  23. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    To be honest I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the fun and games in the Labour party, as they aren’t in government and so they won’t be able to implement whatever they may decide for the next four years and seven months, and I’ve already heard enough to think that it’s very unlikely they’ll win the next general election either.

    I do note that they’re getting away with a lot of rubbish because the Tory party have let them do so. There’s the fact that by adding another £175 billion to Darling’s £200 billion of QE Osborne legitimised large scale money printing as a more or less normal tool which the government can use for its own convenience, rather than just as a last resort, so paving the way for Corbyn’s “People’s QE” proposal. Which also ignores the fact that the £375 billion did not go to bankers as some still believe, apart from minor transmission losses as it passed through the gilts market almost all of it was spent by the government, used to help fund the budget deficit. And then there is the other fact that by deliberately overstating the degree of “austerity” he was imposing Osborne has allowed opponents to completely disregard the actual, if small, increases in total public spending, in both cash and real terms, and propagate their fiction about vicious “Tory cuts”.

    • miami.mode
      Posted October 1, 2015 at 12:30 am | Permalink

      Denis, I don’t think you have got it right on QE

      My understanding is that assuming there was in total £1,000 bn in gilts issued which had been paid for in cash, then the government (or BoE) electronically produced £375 bn to, in effect, buy back their own gilts. Under EU rules they are strictly forbidden to ‘directly’ buy back their own gilts so they had to purchase secondhand ones of which a large quantity, or maybe all, will have come from or through the banks. Thus armed with the cash the banks were expected to lend the cash out to stimulate the economy.

      The ultimate intention is to buy the extra £375 bn back at some time in cash thus cancelling the electronic gilts.

      I believe our man George insists that the BoE pays him the interest on the electronic gilts in cash and of course the proverbial may hit the fan if he decides ultimately to monetise the electronic gilts and simply cancel them. Whether this contravenes EU rules, I know not.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 1, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

        But your assumption is wrong, there was no fixed total of gilts in issue, the Treasury continuously added more, and it carried on doing that in parallel to the Bank buying up the surplus from the gilts market.

        In a wildly off-topic reply to a wildly off-topic comment on a recent thread I provided two links to articles dating from March 2009 which are still on the internet:

        http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/09/29/syria-2/#comment-783883

        From the first:

        “… it is important to understand that while the Bank of England may be a net buyer of gilts, the Government is still a net seller.”

        “… numbers were being bandied around suggesting gilt issuance in the region of £120bn or more and even the head of the Government’s own Debt Management Office (DMO) warned of the possibility of failed gilt auctions in 2009 as the sums required seemed to be unmanageable.”

        From the second:

        “The Government has suffered a major blow to its economic stimulus ambitions after an auction of Treasury gilts failed for the first time in more than a decade, underlining the market’s fears about the state of the nation’s finances.”

        “Investors are thought to be concerned that, should the Bank not do as much quantitative easing as planned, they could be left holding more gilts than hoped as they would not be able to offload them on the central bank. The markets are already under pressure to increase their exposure to gilts as the Government is issuing far more than usual.”

    • Posted October 1, 2015 at 3:39 am | Permalink

      Denis,

      Neil Wilson runs a blog 3spoken and he pretty much agrees with you that QE has been used to fund spending. Which contradicts the line put out by some economists that QE is just an asset swap. I think either view can be correct. We do have to be more careful of how we define QE. It can be in a narrow or wider sense.

      You might want to look up his posting “Does QE ‘finance’ Government Spending? Of course it does. Get over it.”

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 1, 2015 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        I agree that it was an asset swap. Money, cash, as issued by the Bank of England is an asset, and will appear as an asset on any balance sheet; likewise gilts, bonds issued by the Treasury, are also an asset and will appear as an asset on a balance sheet.

        As I’ve said, one way to look at QE, as it has been practised in the UK if not everywhere else, is that the Bank and the Treasury have indirectly swapped their respective IOUs, which are both assets.

        With the Treasury’s IOUs, gilts, migrating to the Bank, which stored them away safely where they could no longer overburden the gilts market, while the Bank’s IOUs, money, migrated to the Treasury, which spent it.

        As for getting over this, first it has to be recognised as the reality.

  24. JoeSoap
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    “Could Labour understand that demanding more homes for people whilst demanding more migrants come to the country makes it difficult for housebuilding to catch up?”

    Pots and kettles…., this is precisely what Osborne and Cameron are doing.

    Reply They are pledged to curbing migration, so do understand the connection.

    • Old Albion
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:45 am | Permalink

      To the 10’s of thousands ?

    • ian wragg
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      Pledge definition. D Cameron. A sound bite to be reneged upon at the earliest opportunity.

  25. A different Simon
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    The biggest irony over the past 20 years has been that they have continued to call themselves the “Labour” party yet actively promoted joblessnessness as an alternative lifestyle .

    Corbyn has at least recognised the existence of the self employed . Perhaps he should get some self employed people in to advise him what it is like .

    Politicians need to understand we are in a global economy and that UK wages will come down no matter what they do so the only option open to them which could work is to reduce the cost of living .

    The problem I see is that Corbyn’s Labour party have no idea how they are going to generate the industry to maintain our current standard of living never mind improve it .

    Conservative and Labour want to give everyone a bigger slice of the pie but the pie is not as big as any of them think . Over the past 7 years most people in the squeezed middle have seen their savings evaporate .

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Under Corbyn the self-employed will be forced to give themselves maternity and paternity leave, as I understood from a snippet I did see. It’s hard to see how any reasonable person could oppose that long overdue improvement …

      • A different Simon
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

        He lives in a fantasy world like most in Westminster .

        I doubt it has occurred to him that many self employed people’s customers are overseas .

        Mine are and if I am not available for them at their beck and call then they will find somebody in India or elsewhere who is .

        Never mind maternity leave , I rarely manage to take 20 days off a year including bank holidays .

        No amount of legislation and good intentions can change that .

  26. stred
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    On R4 Today he was asked why he had not mentioned the deficit once in his speech. he answered that he had talked about the balance of payments deficit. Later, he accused the Conservatives of increasing the deficit. All this will have been lost on his prized new ‘rentavote’ members who are largely the products of the educational system over the past 30 years and think Russell Brand has the answers. His remarks on immigration will have impressed the Labour voters who switched to Ukip and do understand a few things about numbers

  27. Tom William
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    I listened to Corbyn’s speech and was struck by:
    The speech was a performance, well choreographed, showing what a caring, normal person he was, with a sense of humour. Was this actually the real Corbyn? There were a few glimpses of his past, such as a promise to continue campaigning for causes he personally believes in.

    The content was entirely negative. But while he told us what he doesn’t like (many things with which no one could disagree) he gave little indication about what Labour would actually do about them, other than come up with a policy at a future date after discussion.

    His “facts” were almost entirely falsehoods, for example on investment, unemployment, wages, inheritance tax. But they were said so convincingly they were applauded.

    He didn’t actually say that there would be no austerity under Labour because money grows on trees but he did mean “soak the rich” and not so rich.

    His policy of reversing recent educational reforms and returning all state schools to local authority control would be a disaster, albeit not for jobsworths.

    Sky TV interviewed a household in Redcar for their views, which were mixed. One said something like “he sounded reasonable but actually it was all rather vague”.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      I heard that the steel works at Redcar closed again very recently .

      The steel workers have put 2+2 together and worked out that if the shale gas industry ever takes off , that each well will need over two miles of steel well casing .

      Corbyn vehemently opposes domestic shale gas exploration and development and the market (hoped for applicants in the recently closed 14th onshore round) has concluded that the Conservative’s don’t really support it either .

      I’m not from the Industrial North East reckon they will be amongst the first to see through Corbyn .

      • Chris
        Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:37 am | Permalink

        It seems to be only UKIP that have highlighted the problems of Redcar and the plight of the workers, and the EU role in it. See Jonathan Arnott, Roger Helmer and Jane Collins’s (UKIP MEPs) contributions to the debate in the main website article. There seemed to be nothing at all in the main online media nor any significant comment or empathy from any Conservative MPs or MEPs, and yet this is another disaster for our manufacturing industry and all the people whose livelihoods were dependent on Redcar.

        Perhaps the reason for the apparent silence of Conservative and Labour politicians is that they know full well that this closure is a direct result of EU policies which are rendering our manufacturing industry uncompetitive. Roger Helmer refers to a statement from Antonio Tajani, former European Commissioner for industry who highlights the problems of the EU’s Green energy policy :

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10295045/Brussels-fears-European-industrial-massacre-sparked-by-energy-costs.html
        “Brussels fears European ‘industrial massacre’ sparked by energy costs
        Europe’s industry is being ravaged by exorbitant energy costs and an over-valued euro, blighting efforts to reverse years of global manufacturing decline
        “We face a systemic industrial massacre,” said Antonio Tajani, the European industry commissioner.

        Mr Tajani warned that Europe’s quixotic dash for renewables was pushing electricity costs to untenable levels, leaving Europe struggling to compete as America’s shale revolution cuts US natural gas prices by 80pc.

        “I am in favour of a green agenda, but we can’t be religious about this. We need a new energy policy. We have to stop pretending, because we can’t sacrifice Europe’s industry for climate goals that are not realistic, and are not being enforced worldwide,” he told The Daily Telegraph during the Ambrosetti forum of global policy-makers at Lake Como.

        “The loss of competitiveness is frightening,” said Paulo Savona, head of Italy’s Fondo Interbancario. “When people choose whether to invest in Europe or the US, what they think about most is the cost of energy.” …”

  28. They Work for Us?
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Apologies if this has been posted before but it seems an apt description.

    Ineptocracy : – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society who are least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

  29. Posted September 30, 2015 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    The fact that Labour has wrecked the lives of many poor people cannot be doubted but it would be unfair to suggest that they meant it to happen.

    I don’t think François Hollande or Nicolás Maduro meant to hurt the poorest people in their respected countries despite the fact that their policies did just that.

    I agree that a grown up discussion should concern itself about the means instead of doubting people’s honour and sincerity.

  30. oldtimer
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Corbynomics will gain traction with the electorate unless the Conservatives are able to demolish his arguments – something his opponents for the Labour leadership failed to do. That presents a challenge because the current government has itself resorted to printing money on an industrial scale. It may advance reasons for doing so – and the more convincing they make them sound, then the more difficult it will be to counter the Corbynomics version and aims of money printing.

  31. agricola
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    It remains to be seen whether the rhetoric of conference is matched with carefully crafted policy.

    Their stance on remaining a member of the EU is in direct conflict with their desire for sufficient house building, and support for the workers at Redcar. 600,000 plus immigrants, mostly not in a position to buy any house, and very expensive electricity get in the way of both. They forget that they were complicit with the EU in green/expensive electricity. They rant about the companies that choose low tax havens within the EU quite legally. This is EU policy. To combat it we need to become the lowest tax regime in the EU or leave. None of which is to their liking.

    Give them time to turn aspiration into policy. It is not all bad, for instance they seem to acknowledge the uphill struggle unaided of the self employed. They see the iniquity of pay day loan companies, and the need for a banking industry that positively supports small and medium business. However blaming the banking industry for the disasters of the past, largely true, while failing to accept that they were complicit in it’s de-regulation is less than honest.

    I would support their stance on Sunday trading. It only shifts the cash flow rather than increasing it. One should be able to achieve all one wants in the existing six hours for major shops.

    Let’s see how things develop, the way forward for the UK is not a closed book. The conservative party seem to be edging in the right direction but have nothing to feel complacent about. They are as much under scrutiny by the electorate as are labour.

  32. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I confess surprise Mr Corbyn did not write his own stuff entirely.Does a Labour Party Committee scrutinise and permission their Leader’s speech prior delivery? It sounded so. It sounds like the Labour Party. Cut and pasted bits of this and that. A dog’s dinner of a speech not for human consumption.

    Beforehand,a check is best made by a proofreader of sorts. Most people have read so much, listened so much within their field. Difficult not to inadvertently and innocently come up with a sentence or two even verbatim believing one is being original.

    As to the Labourt Party, Mr Corbyn has some hope. Many “leading Blairites were off on the train to London ” avoiding listening to him. Perhaps Lefties in the past sat still and stopped fidgeting when the situation was reversed.Had common courtesy, Party loyalty, a kinder politics. Doubtful.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      Christopher Houston ,

      Quote “leading Blairites were off on the train to London ”

      Like most people , I have a lot of relatives living in London .

      Strangely they absolutely love it there and only venture outside the M25 if absolutely necessary . It’s not so much a congestion zone as a comfort zone .

      LibLabCon is synonymous with London .

      The election of a North London dinner party goer like Corbyn to Labour leader has only served to reinforce this .

  33. Alte Fritz
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    The theme of Labour thinking has been anything but kinder. They cannot face the fact that the elctorate rejected them. They may blame “old” politics but really they blame the people and seem set on taking their revenge. Their is nothing kind nice or reasonable about grassroots Labour at the moment. People like John McTiernan can see exactly where this is going.

  34. Tad Davison
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Fascinating to see the divergence of opinion between the Parliamentary Labour Party and the grass-roots membership. Labour MPs want to do their own thing, which might well fly in the face of what ordinary Labour voters want, yet the former expects the latter to vote for them anyway, and keep them in their cushy Westminster seats regardless.

    That naturally includes the small matters of immigration, and Britain’s membership of the EU. It wasn’t for nothing that so many working-class people decided to vote for Eurosceptic parties at the last General Election, and the Parliamentary Labour Party ignores them at their peril. For the PLP to just meekly and blindly accept all that is the European Union, is just plain wrong, so they’re hardly in a commanding position intellectually.

    So here’s a train of thought, as distinct from an opinion, and one for the Labour left to mull over. They seem to be most concerned about employment law, and see the EU as getting what they want by the back door. By being a good, compliant European, they might benefit from its left of centre ethos.

    If Mr Cameron is successful with his renegotiation of the UK’s membership (whatever that may look like) and in the highly unlikely event the EU consequently sees sense and moves to the right, Labour and the unions might not get their cherished notions of what employment law should look like, via that route. Their recourse then should be to campaign to exit the EU, go along with the wishes of the people they so routinely ignore, and to rely solely upon the British electorate to accept their ideals and objectives, as indeed the PLP should have done all along.

    It’s called, having policies decided by a democratic process, rather than by unelected commissioners, and is far more ethical and in keeping with a party that wishes to portray itself as democratic and truly representing the ‘working man’.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

  35. margaret
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Tell me what grown up means. I see it as this.

    1) Being accurate and honest about facts and figures relative to their importance in the whole and taking consideration of all sources of information.
    2) Keeping the personal attacks out of the picture.
    3) Using sources of information from other voters to demonstrate a democratic stance.
    4)Calmness of attitude and allowance of others to speak without butting in. e.g.as in interviews.
    5) Avoidance of using political party competition in itself to set the balance of debate. E.g . We must do all we can to stop the tories/ labour party getting in.
    6) Attitudes which display an inflated ego as if they were the only one on the planet and the only valid opinion.
    7) The use of abusive slang to disagree with a stance.
    8) The disrespect for other parties and members by making up silly abusive names.
    9) A denial of truth when it stares one in the face.
    10) jeering throughout a speech

  36. A different Simon
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps you’d like to go up to Middlesboro in person and tell those steel workers that they will eventually be glad the works closed ?

    Maybe their conscience prevents them from setting up ecommerce sites for import and distribution of products made overseas .

  37. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Happened today is something throwing the EU OUT Campaign as definite No-no.
    Ms Maria Eagle, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, stated on TV she was opposed to Mr Corbyn announcing PUBLICLY to the British people his unwillingness to press the nuclear button and his desire to get rid of nuclear weapons.

    Since Mr Corbyn’s views on Trident and the use of nuclear weapons is very well known in political circles on both sides of the equation; then, a possible future full-blown Minister of Defence in the shape of Ms Eagle is quite content to see a Labour victory, a leader at the helm in Mr Corbyn, keeping secret that such an eventuality would bring to the fore behind the back of the British electorate, with her connivance, a dire threat to the security of our country.

    Very much to the point. Both Right and Left in the Labour Party are a threat to Britain. The Left quite openly; the Right secretly acquiescent to the point of abject stupidity and irresponsibility. Is there any reason to trust the Labour Party with Defence or anything whatsoever? What lesser things than Defence are they prepared to lie about and keep silent about to the point of annihilation?

    If the EU Referendum is won and we regain our sovereignty, just what Party will hold sovereign power and responsibility? We may be very well be jumping from the frying pan of Europe to a literal burning hell under Labour.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 1, 2015 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

      One of Heath’s spurious arguments for joining the EEC.

  38. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    I see that Putin has decided to take strong military action to destroy Islamic State, Obama and his poodle Cameron being reluctant to make sufficiently serious efforts in that regard. It may a tough one for Corbyn, whether to support the Russians or the Islamic extremists.

  39. Dennis
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    “A grown up debate means recognising that both Conservatives and Labour want higher living standards for all, ”

    But not all that grown up as there will be mention of who ‘all’ is (‘don’t mention the rest of the world’) and from where this higher supply of goodies will fundamentally come from and what that means.

    • Dennis
      Posted September 30, 2015 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      Sorry -… there will be NO mention…

  40. Anonymous
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    ” Could Labour understand that demanding more homes for people whilst demanding more migrants come to the country makes it difficult for housebuilding to catch up?”

    Even The Standard and Telegraph fail to make this link. “The reason we have a housing crisis is because we aren’t building enough houses.” The real reason is still taboo and is obviously unmentionable in ‘clever’ company.

    The Left have the BBC pushing their agenda. This is more powerful than an opposition party.

  41. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Could we, perhaps, discuss the real failures of the Coalition and Conservative governments? These are:
    – Failure to cut the deficit fast enough (but they wanted to be re-elected)
    – Unjustified ring fencing (including the amount spent on the retired elderly)
    – The reduced income tax yield
    – Failure to use the right inflation index in applying monetary policy (it should include house prices)
    – The chronic balance of payments deficit

    Could Labour do better? It’s not the way to bet. The Big State is expensive. Taxing the rich would not yield sufficient revenue. A large increase in the standard rate of income tax would be needed – but they are too dishonest to say so.

  42. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    A kinder policy and an open debate – indeed many open debates. This will last about a year, after which deselection of Labour MPs who disagree with kind hearted Jeremy will be organised by his less-than-kind thugs.

  43. libertarian
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    Corbyns supporters have been the most abusive, deranged and vile trolls on social media. Left wing thugs have targeted national monuments and small independent cafes alike. The ultra left are the worst type of political supporters. Anyone who lets Corbyn get away with this kind of spin is really really not up to their job. The man needs to be faced down over his supporters behaviour

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 1, 2015 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      No, no, no – it’s the right wing extremists we should really be worried about, not left wing extremists holding posts at the LSE who attack an innocuous small business for no good reason, nor the thugs in the UAF still endorsed by the Prime Minister, nor indeed the Islamic extremists who would happily cut off his infidel head … I know this is the case, because I am constantly told so by the BBC, and by Sky …

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted October 2, 2015 at 1:10 am | Permalink

      I avoid this type of thing by not using social media at all. There’s not much you can say in 140 characters or in a picture, so where’s the loss? I also don’t answer incoming calls from 0840/1/2/3/4/5 numbers. You can positively guarantee that the people on the other end are pests.

  44. Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    “A grown up debate means recognising that both Conservatives and Labour want higher living standards for all….. “

    But what has happened in practice in the last decade? The ultra rich have doubled their wealth whereas everyone else has struggled. That’s been down to the policies of both major parties. No doubt politicians in Europe would say exactly the same thing. They introduced the euro to bring higher living standards for all countries. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland ….

    Yet the only Greeks, Spanish, etc , just as in all countries, who have done well recently are the super rich. Its hard to say their living standards have improved. Are they any better for having £10 billion than £5 billion ?

    So, it’s not what any politician says they want that matters. Obviously no politician in a democratic society can say anything else other than they do want better for everyone. But, when we see homeless in the streets, people queuing for food banks, the NHS creaking for lack of staff when we have millions looking for work we know there’s something wrong.

    The problem stems from either a lack of understanding of how our economy works or a deliberate misrepresentation of how our economy works for political purposes. Even Jeremy Corbyn hasn’t quite grasped it yet but he’s showing signs of getting there. But the rest of the Labour Party are just as bad as anyone else in their deficit fetishism. Mrs Thatcher ran deficits, Mr Major ran deficits, Mr Blair and Mr Brown ran deficits, Mr Cameron still does run deficits and life goes on. Yet, even though inflation is only 0% we are constantly told they are a bad thing!

    That’s the underlying problem causing our economic woes and those of our friends in Europe too!

    Reply Everyone agrees public deficits are important in offsetting demand loss in the private sector during a recession like the 2008-9 one. I hope everyone also accepts that if a country runs up ever larger deficits and debts it can end up bust like Greece, Argentina etc which is not a good place to go. I can assure you Conservatives do want people to be better off, and current economic policies are allowing that to happen.

    • Posted October 1, 2015 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      The lesson to be learnt from Greece is that the UK should never ever consider joining the euro!

      Argentina’s mistake was twofold in the crisis leading to its default in 2001. Firstly it tried to peg its currency to the dollar. Secondly it borrowed in US$. Someone else’s currency.

      The UK hasn’t made any of these mistakes -recently. The debt is largely denominated in £ and therefore there is no default risk whatsoever. There is only a potential inflation risk. When, and if, inflation exceeds target is the time to start to restrain spending and/or increase taxes.

  45. Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Apparently we’re all 3.7% better off than we were! Even though inflation is close to zero, that can’t be allowed! The solution? Put up interest rates!

    Are we sure BoE independence (so-called) is really a good idea? That’s going to achieve nothing except bring about another economic crash. If we are determined to do that to ourselves, shouldn’t we at least discuss the pros and cons in a democratic manner?

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/30/strong-pay-growth-pressure-bank-of-england-raise-interest-rates

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 1, 2015 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      Well, if necessary the Chancellor can always ask Parliament to allow him to activate reserve powers and suspend the independence of the Bank of England.

  46. Posted October 1, 2015 at 4:00 am | Permalink

    We should all endevour to be “nice and kind”!

    I think Jeremy Corbyn is doing his best in that regard. He was genuinely quite shocked, as many of us were, at some of the comments directed at Liz Kendall in the leadership contest and has actually spoken up for David Cameron. But there’s a lot of new members in the Labour Party and there’s always going to be a few that can’t be relied on to do the right thing.

    On the other side of the spectrum we have the not-so-nice-people on Guido Fawkes!

    Is anyone volunteering to get them in-line?

  47. stred
    Posted October 1, 2015 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    But the His Omnipotence has to stay neutral and keep quiet about it like the HM the Queen, Prince Charles please note.

  48. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 1, 2015 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    You may be right, but officially only the Queen is anointed by God.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page