The end of the Labour party

[geared]

No way he ever claimed to be able to pay off the entire national debt in 5 years, I bet he was talking about the deficit.

[Robin-H]

No way he ever claimed to be able to pay off the entire national debt in 5 years, I bet he was talking about the deficit.

 

Indeed, and I think banjodeano realises that, but maybe thinks admitting that they got it wrong is a sign of weakness (whereas I feel freely admitting your mistakes is an indication of a strong character) and so is stubbornly sticking to their guns, which is making them look rather foolish..

[Obelix]

Talking about wild claims....I recall Osborne ranting about getting the debt cleared in five years, and he managed to double it

 

When diehard Labour supporters STILL cannot understand the difference between debt and deficit you realise why people are scared of handing control of the economy to them....

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2017 at 16:51 ----------

 

Talking about wild claims....I recall Osborne ranting about getting the debt cleared in five years, and he managed to double it

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-11-25/debates/15112551000003/SpendingReviewAndAutumnStatement

 

Column 1374 statement by John Mcdonnell is they bit you need.

 

I await your retraction of your erroneous claim.

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2017 at 16:51 ----------

 

No way he ever claimed to be able to pay off the entire national debt in 5 years, I bet he was talking about the deficit.

 

As per my reference to Hansard.....

[Jacktari]

I think it just that it will take many years for people to trust economists and accountants again.

No one has ever really respected them, but after the disasters they have caused over the last decade, they are despised.

 

So when they start spouting off again it is just so much tommyrot.

[Obelix]

what disasters have they caused then? As a matter of interest?

[Jacktari]

what disasters have they caused then? As a matter of interest?

 

I thought we had just gone through a massive international financial crisis?

 

Or was that in another dimension.

 

I know it wasn't your fault, so don't start demanding apologies again, for christs sake.

[Mister M]

But would John Smith have won it for Labour in 1997? There was a massive change in the shape and style of the party after his sad death and Blair becoming PM?

 

Its easy now to mock and dismiss New Labour, but I think that's what won it in 1997.

 

From Wiki:

 

Yes, I think Labour would have won in 1997 under John Smith. Bear in mind that it's often Governments that lose elections as much as oppositions win them.

At the time the Tories were riven with divisions over Europe, mired in allegations of sleaze (sexual and financial), laughed at by the press, and had been in power for 18 years.

I do think under Smith there wouldn't have been an Iraq war (which still haunts the party to this day). And although Smith was traditionally on the right of the party, many of the policies associated with Blair would possibly not have been pursued, and the way that Blair and his allies carried out their politics turned people off.

A big part of me thinks that the election of Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party is a reaction to the Blair years, and all that they represented.

In many ways Corbyn is a decent man, and I don't think it's so much that his left wing views aren't popular (rail nationalisation is popular with the public); I think it's moret hat he's not seen as credible or competent.

[Anna B]

But he sits on the fence so much, and when he does talk its little more than rhetoric.

 

I think the fact they won Stoke is probably the worst thing for Labour, because it means they'll just muddle on as before - 1 win, 1 loss.

 

If it had been two losses then that would have been enough momentum to get rid of Corbyn.

 

What probably helped him lose, and this is just one example, was the Labour twit who was asked about 8 times by Andrew Neil if Corbyn was against Nuclear power. (Sellafield Nuclear power station or whatever it's called now is in the constituency) and he fudged and refused to answer, the conclusion that was drawn was that Corbyn was against it. Yet what Jeremy Corbyn actually said on a programme a couple of weeks ago on an obscure Sunday morning slot, was that he recognised that Nuclear power was a necessary part of our power resources and he would support jobs in the industry.

 

Now the Labour spokesman was either very ill-informed, intimidated by Andrew Neil's harrassment and assumptions, or is a closet Blairite out to stab Corbyn in the back. It made him (and Labour) look bad as intended.

 

Either way, why is it they always seem to go to anyone but Corbyn on the primetime news and current affairs programmes, baring in mind how often Cameron and Ed Milliband used to appear in these slots,

[El Cid]

the Labour twit who was asked about 8 times by Andrew Neil if Corbyn was against Nuclear power.

 

That is why all politicians are seen by the public as liars and cheats; but would he ask a Tory 8 times.

Corbyn is not a solution to that, he is just the same.

[Obelix]

I thought we had just gone through a massive international financial crisis?

 

Or was that in another dimension.

 

I know it wasn't your fault, so don't start demanding apologies again, for christs sake.

 

You see I ask a perfectly reasonable question and all you come back with is abuse.

 

Did economists cause it? you know the people who study these things? Or was it just perhaps some wayward bankers?