Labour Party/government Watch

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 14 Aug 2015, 14:53

emordnilap wrote:Even The Guardian's attacking Corbyn. Pressure from advertisers? Takeover in the works? Infiltration?

Anyone who's given so much flack by vested interests is worth supporting.

Or it could be simply that he is really so bad that it is best not to support him.

oobers · Post by **oobers** » 14 Aug 2015, 15:25

http://www.num.org.uk/page/News-NUMNews/moreinfo/2306

The National Executive of the NUM have opted to support Yvette Cooper for Leader and Tom Watson for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

A little ironic..

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 Aug 2015, 16:42

What Jeremy Corbyn actually wrote:“And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again. But if there’s to be substantial coal fire generation it’s got to be clean burn technology, it’s got to have carbon filters on it, it’s got to be carbon neutral.

“I’ve looked at it, I’ve discussed it, I’ve heard about it. It’s complicated. At one level it looks very expensive. But the advantages also look quite attractive.

“But the principles have to be that we’re protective of our environment, guaranteeing affordable energy supplies for everybody, and we’re not ripped off by big companies.”

So he is only going to support renewed coal mining if "it’s got to be carbon neutral". Which means that unless and until CCS really works, forget it. I agree with Corbyn.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 Aug 2015, 16:51

Best yet from Mark Steel:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 28421.html

oobers · Post by **oobers** » 14 Aug 2015, 17:33

Drat

Still can't always post when quoting others. Just get a blank in Preview

Any suggestions?

Anyway - re what Corbyn actually said - Fine. And a quick look round at the current thinking on CCS would suggest that it will only ever be able to reach 90% of CO2 removed so not carbon neutral. Then there's transporting the CO2 in liquid form by pipeline or road to its final destination, and leakage possibilities. A trial by Vattenfal in Germany was abandoned last year and they have said they have given up on CCS - it is just too expensive and uses too much additional energy. So - a dead duck by many accounts. I suspect some people in Wales will have got their hopes up now though.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 Aug 2015, 17:48

oobers wrote:Drat Still can't always post when quoting others. Just get a blank in Preview Any suggestions?

The blank preview - try clicking the back button to go back to your draft and posting. It will post. Read your post and make sure it's ok, or edit it. I find some posts preview, some don't.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 Aug 2015, 17:50

oobers wrote:Anyway - re what Corbyn actually said - Fine. And a quick look round at the current thinking on CCS would suggest that it will only ever be able to reach 90% of CO2 removed so not carbon neutral. Then there's transporting the CO2 in liquid form by pipeline or road to its final destination, and leakage possibilities. A trial by Vattenfal in Germany was abandoned last year and they have said they have given up on CCS - it is just too expensive and uses too much additional energy. So - a dead duck by many accounts. I suspect some people in Wales will have got their hopes up now though.

Good. The more CO2 etc left in the ground, the better.

oobers · Post by **oobers** » 14 Aug 2015, 20:48

biffvernon wrote:Best yet from Mark Steel:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 28421.html

It’s outsiders that have caused it. The only explanation for the madness that’s taken over the Labour Party, according to MPs such as John Mann, is people from outside are joining Labour, so the leadership election should be cancelled.

Presumably John Mann would change the rules, so no one was allowed to join the Labour Party unless they were already a member. That should stop these scheming non-members from trying to infiltrate the party through the trick of becoming members.

Then Mann should be put in charge of other organisations to keep out troublemakers. If you apply to join a snooker club, he could be there to ask “are you already a member of this snooker club?” If you said you weren’t – which is why you’d like to join – he’d say, “Get out. I know your game pal, you want to turn us into a canoeing club.” That way it would stay pure and wholesome.

I went to sign up as a supporter the other day. I was asked to confirm:
"I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it". Well, I thought - I am a Green Party member so maybe I am opposed to it but I don't know.. presumably to be opposed to it, I would have to be opposed to it's aims and values. So, I went to the Labour Party website to look at what its aims and values are. Could I find them? No. Helpful..
So I looked up Labour Party Aims and Values on Google and Wikipedia obliged, reminding me that the Aims and Values of the Labour Party are set out in Clause 4 of it's constitution. The famously amended version reads:
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"
Can I support any of that? Yes I can support all of that. And I don't see anything in the Green Party Core Values that opposes that statement either. So I ticked the box and now I am a Labour supporter. Presumably, anyone who wanted to be able to vote for Burnham or Cooper 'because they are more electable' could do the same thing so they could get a vote to keep Corbyn out. But this whole affair has been framed as giving an unfair advantage to Corbyn. What rubbish.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Aug 2015, 20:52

The level of unadulterated bile and propaganda against Corbyn is a sight to behold. God help us, I hope it doesn't affect the result.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 14 Aug 2015, 21:12

oobers wrote:[Presumably, anyone who wanted to be able to vote for Burnham or Cooper 'because they are more electable' could do the same thing so they could get a vote to keep Corbyn out. But this whole affair has been framed as giving an unfair advantage to Corbyn. What rubbish.

Yep, it's completely stupid. Well...if members of the tory party are signing up to vote for Corbyn because they think it will help the tories win the next election then that's a genuine problem, but the "tories for Corbyn" movement only lasted about a week before the penny dropped that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be bad news for the tories. But for people on the left? The vote hasn't taken place yet, so there's no way that anyone can know who all the new supporters and members will vote for, but it is obvious that the other three all believe that the majority are Corbyn supporters. Which means they know perfectly well that they are incapable of attracting new people to vote Labour, while Corbyn is. And this is seen as bad thing? It's bad that Corbyn attracts new people to Labour? Eh?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 Aug 2015, 21:26

Lovely to know I agree exactly with the four previous posters.

I went through the same process, oobers.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 14 Aug 2015, 21:39

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ll-parties

Corbyn scores highest, or a close second on almost all questions when choosing between the four candidates, for supporters of all parties. Particularly good scores from UKIP supporters, which is a bit surprising but extremely good news, as a lot of Labour's lost votes went to UKIP.

There is nothing in this poll to indicate that Corbyn would be unelectable. Nothing at all.

Not so popular with Tory voters.

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 14 Aug 2015, 22:15

Little John wrote:The level of unadulterated bile and propaganda against Corbyn is a sight to behold. God help us, I hope it doesn't affect the result.

In much the same vein:
John Hilley Time to boycott and exit The Guardian

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 15 Aug 2015, 02:13

The Guardian lost any credibility whatsoever with me during its coverage of Assange. I questioned its coverage (with fully sourced evidence) at the time in its comments sections and got myself banned from making comments for my trouble.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Aug 2015, 10:34

Here's a plan.

Jeremy Corbyn wrote: Growth not austerity – with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all - let the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden to balance the books.

A lower welfare bill through investment and growth not squeezing the least well-off and cuts to child tax credits.

Action on climate change - for the long-term interest of the planet rather than the short-term interests of corporate profits.

Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector - privatisation has put profits before people.

Decent homes for all in public and private sectors by 2025 through a big housebuilding programme and controlling rents.

No more illegal wars, a foreign policy that prioritises justice and assistance. Replacing Trident not with a new generation of nuclear weapons but jobs that retain the communities’ skills.

Fully-funded NHS, integrated with social care, with an end to privatisation in health.

Protection at work – no zero hours contracts, strong collective bargaining to stamp out workplace injustice.

Equality for all – a society that accepts no barriers to everyone’s talents and contribution. An end to scapegoating of migrants.

A life-long national education service for decent skills and opportunities throughout our lives: universal childcare, abolishing student fees and restoring grants, and funding adult skills training throughout our lives.

Of course it should start with degrowth rather than growth, but that's an argument for a later day.