New Labour Leader

[shmmeee]

Well, neither of us know but I'm optimistic. Which ranty gammons do you think he's brought into the cabinet?

I didn’t say cabinet. That’s just far right nutters and people the voters rejected.

 

[mrtrench]

I think there’s going to be a cabinet reshuffle late Feb and budget shortly after, that should give a fair idea about the direction of travel.

I lean towards Trenchs view....anyone opposite Corbyn is going to appear far right, but in reality, the manifesto and spending pledges are anything but.

I think one of the most important changes needed is social care. We have to help people unable to cope (homeless; drug addicts; perpetually unemployed; criminals...). Not just throw money at them - real help to enable them to cope. I heard on R4 the other day that the right noises are coming from the government re drugs (from a charity worker expert in his field) - a move to evidence-based help rather than red-faced anger and punishment. We live in hope.

 

[shmmeee]

I think you are a teacher? I used to teach also in the 80s. I had the freedom to teach my subject (Maths) as I wanted back then and could diverge into something else if it was interesting and came up. I cannot remember how, but at one stage I recall discussing anachronisms with a class. I had limited administration and so took in all books every week to mark homework and see how they were getting on. I get the impression that this has changed with constant measurement and IMO it's not a step-forward.

I used to teach. I had enough freedom TBH in Computing. Gove ruined education and reduced the curriculum and focused away from vocational subjects all while tightening Ofsted oversight. The Tories are no friend to education.

 

[shmmeee]

I think one of the most important changes needed is social care. We have to help people unable to cope (homeless; drug addicts; perpetually unemployed; criminals...). Not just throw money at them - real help to enable them to cope. I heard on R4 the other day that the right noises are coming from the government re drugs (from a charity worker expert in his field) - a move to evidence-based help rather than red-faced anger and punishment. We live in hope.

About that:

 

[shmmeee]

Why people keep voting Tory then hoping they won’t be Tories is beyond me.

 

[mrtrench]

About that:

 

[mrtrench]

Why people keep voting Tory then hoping they won’t be Tories is beyond me.

We effectively have a choice between two parties; we choose the least bad each time. For me, it always comes down to the economy as the top priority as I am a staunch believer in free-market economics as the best approach the world has yet invented. I'm no fan of authoritarian-style Tory policy (e.g. Thatcher's Section 28) but there is a growing movement of libertarians who support the free-markets (Cameron's Gay Marriage). This is why I'm a floating voter. I could vote for Blair, could never vote for a miserablist, inept, worst-case Labour leader just as I couldn't vote for an authoritarian, intolerant Tory.

 

[CCFCSteve]

I used to teach. I had enough freedom TBH in Computing. Gove ruined education and reduced the curriculum and focused away from vocational subjects all while tightening Ofsted oversight. The Tories are no friend to education.

I think this is a little unfair. I might be wrong but I read recently that there are now 85% of schools rated as good or outstanding, up from late 60s/early 70% from memory

I’m not a massive fan of simplistic stats and I also appreciate the pressure on schools/teachers (especially with increased class numbers and without wanting to bring brexit into the equation, I’d imagine having to teach increased numbers from other countries over the past 10-15 years has been an additional challenge), however, this doesn’t back up your claim shmmeee

From an outsiders perspective, I think the academy system could have been better implemented/be better controlled, however, I have also read some positive stories of academies set up in inner city/deprived areas (which is what I think the academy system should be focussing on) where they have changed lives for the better.

 

[mrtrench]

I have also read some positive stories of academies set up in inner city/deprived areas (which is what I think the academy system should be focussing on) where they have changed lives for the better.

Katharine Birbalsingh is a hero of mine. She's changing poor black lives for the better with her school.

 

[clint van damme]

Katharine Birbalsingh is a hero of mine. She's changing poor black lives for the better with her school.

is she the lady from the school is East London who are achieving incredible results?

 

[mrtrench]

is she the lady from the school is East London who are achieving incredible results?

Yes. I follow her on Twitter - she's wonderful.

 

[Grendel]

Starmer is the obvious choice has he looks measured, is coherent and wears a proper suit.

O don’t know why when parties elect a leader they need to really think whose the best candidate in a few years time. Starmer is hardly an inspired choice but safe and is not going to have obvious Northern appeal - part of the Westinster elite and failed on his big strategy.

I would look for someone to grow into the role and be there to challenge next election

Nandy to me is a good choice given she will improve her style in the media as she goes on. She’s attractive (I mean that in terms of looking a good trustworthy person) has a ca measured way and voice and is likeable.

She also understands that votes from real people win elections and not members.

However I feel that labour will find a way of appointing the absurd Long-Bailey and then blame everyone else as they sail into oblivion

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Nandy to me is a good choice given she will improve her style in the media as she goes on. She’s attractive (I mean that in terms of looking a good trustworthy person) has a ca measured way and voice and is likeable

I guarantee the press would go after her father's background, and throw up the smoke in the same way they did with Ed Milliband's dad.

If it was a leader other than Johnson, Starmar would be an excellent choice as he'd pull them apart. he may well pull Johnson apart too... but that doesn't seem to matter!

So, it's less about content, more about perception this time around. if Johnson wants to be man of the people, show it up as just how far removed from that he really is.

 

[shmmeee]

Starmer is the obvious choice has he looks measured, is coherent and wears a proper suit.

O don’t know why when parties elect a leader they need to really think whose the best candidate in a few years time. Starmer is hardly an inspired choice but safe and is not going to have obvious Northern appeal - part of the Westinster elite and failed on his big strategy.

I would look for someone to grow into the role and be there to challenge next election

Nandy to me is a good choice given she will improve her style in the media as she goes on. She’s attractive (I mean that in terms of looking a good trustworthy person) has a ca measured way and voice and is likeable.

She also understands that votes from real people win elections and not members.

However I feel that labour will find a way of appointing the absurd Long-Bailey and then blame everyone else as they sail into oblivion

I knew I blocked you for a reason. It’s so I don’t have a fainting episode when I agree with you 100% like this post.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

We effectively have a choice between two parties; we choose the least bad each time. For me, it always comes down to the economy as the top priority as I am a staunch believer in free-market economics as the best approach the world has yet invented. I'm no fan of authoritarian-style Tory policy (e.g. Thatcher's Section 28) but there is a growing movement of libertarians who support the free-markets (Cameron's Gay Marriage). This is why I'm a floating voter. I could vote for Blair, could never vote for a miserablist, inept, worst-case Labour leader just as I couldn't vote for an authoritarian, intolerant Tory.

I think the economy should provide the baseline, but it definitely needs to be amended to take into account more social issues such as 'happiness' indices, healthcare, crime, poverty/inequality, environment etc. like Iceland has done recently.

We have constant coverage on news of changes in interest rates, unemployment, GDP, budgets etc but how often do we get an in depth look on where we stand in UN healthcare standards etc? We've had reports on Mark Carney talking about things beyond his remit but we don't get the head of social services as a headline talking about the economy.

How exactly this should be worked out is way beyond my abilities, but as we have boffins working out the formula for a a perfect cup of tea perhaps we could get them to look into formulas for an amended economic baseline.

Just using economic data just gives more power and influence to those who think money is all and completely undervalue everything else. They're often very selfish and are the people that take all the risks that result in economic downturns/recessions/crashes (and in some extreme cases deliberately engineer them for personal gain despite already being extremely wealthy) which have far more effect on others, especially the most vulnerable.

That needs to change.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If it was a leader other than Johnson, Starmar would be an excellent choice as he'd pull them apart. he may well pull Johnson apart too... but that doesn't seem to matter!

So, it's less about content, more about perception this time around. if Johnson wants to be man of the people, show it up as just how far removed from that he really is.

In this 'man of the people' regard Jess Phillips is the complete opposite and most likely to show him up, but as you say it never seems to matter - people just get taken in by it.

I think Starmer is probably the most capable but would it be a waste of his abilities to make him leader now when he's got to come from so far back? Like bringing Aguero on when you're 4-0 down.

 

[shmmeee]

I guarantee the press would go after her father's background, and throw up the smoke in the same way they did with Ed Milliband's dad.

If it was a leader other than Johnson, Starmar would be an excellent choice as he'd pull them apart. he may well pull Johnson apart too... but that doesn't seem to matter!

So, it's less about content, more about perception this time around. if Johnson wants to be man of the people, show it up as just how far removed from that he really is.

The Tory vote didn’t shoot up, the Labour vote collapsed as people stayed home. Boris got an easy win due to Brexit and Corbyn not because he’s massively popular. He’s less popular than Corbyn or May in 2017.

People will want competence.

I like Nandy, I think her fathers record isn’t anything like as radical as Milibands.

 

[shmmeee]

In this 'man of the people' regard Jess Phillips is the complete opposite and most likely to show him up, but as you say it never seems to matter - people just get taken in by it.

I think Starmer is probably the most capable but would it be a waste of his abilities to make him leader now when he's got to come from so far back? Like bringing Aguero on when you're 4-0 down.

Come on this is Labour. Even if we lose well claim it’s a win and the leader should stay!

 

[mrtrench]

Just using economic data just gives more power and influence to those who think money is all and completely undervalue everything else. They're often very selfish and are the people that take all the risks that result in economic downturns/recessions/crashes (and in some extreme cases deliberately engineer them for personal gain despite already being extremely wealthy) which have far more effect on others, especially the most vulnerable.

That needs to change.

I agree that the economy isn't everything and that happiness is more important than wealth. But I think the second half of your post is pure conspiracy theory. Who exactly is it that can cause an economic downturn by themselves? And if they had that much power, wouldn't we see recessions more frequently than we do? If I was so inclined and had that power, I'd be having them, followed by boom bubbles, every six months or so.

These kind of conspiracy theories come from people who have no idea how the markets work and let their imaginations run riot. If someone has told you this, they have made it up and are lying to you. If you thought of it yourself, ask yourself how much knowledge you have and whether it's wise to make shit up and then post it in public.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I agree that the economy isn't everything and that happiness is more important than wealth. But I think the second half of your post is pure conspiracy theory. Who exactly is it that can cause an economic downturn by themselves? And if they had that much power, wouldn't we see recessions more frequently than we do? If I was so inclined and had that power, I'd be having them, followed by boom bubbles, every six months or so.

These kind of conspiracy theories come from people who have no idea how the markets work and let their imaginations run riot. If someone has told you this, they have made it up and are lying to you. If you thought of it yourself, ask yourself how much knowledge you have and whether it's wise to make shit up and then post it in public.

I've got a degree in accounts and economics

It's all about when it no longer can be sustained for higher gain - similar to how a pyramid scheme works but with a bit more oversight. 2008 crash was when the subprime mortgages could no longer be kept up, packaging and selling them off was also no longer viable so it was pull the investments quick. If you did it that often there'd be no faith in the markets whatsoever and you'd be harming your own potential overall gains- you have to choose when it's peaked and when to get out. It's a risky business in case you don't get it right so as always it's risk vs return.

There is also regulation preventing stuff like major shareholders just selling huge swathes to reduce the share price then buy it back cheaper, as well as stuff like insider trading. I personally don't like the idea of short selling either, even though there are protections for it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Who exactly is it that can cause an economic downturn by themselves?

Robert Merton?

 

[mrtrench]

I've got a degree in accounts and economics

It's all about when it no longer can be sustained for higher gain - similar to how a pyramid scheme works but with a bit more oversight. 2008 crash was when the subprime mortgages could no longer be kept up, packaging and selling them off was also no longer viable so it was pull the investments quick. If you did it that often there'd be no faith in the markets whatsoever and you'd be harming your own potential overall gains- you have to choose when it's peaked and when to get out. It's a risky business in case you don't get it right so as always it's risk vs return.

There is also regulation preventing stuff like major shareholders just selling huge swathes to reduce the share price then buy it back cheaper, as well as stuff like insider trading. I personally don't like the idea of short selling either, even though there are protections for it.

Thank you for pulling back on the claim that powerful people cause recessions deliberately. That's the start of the common antisemitic trope that Jews control the world - which is where I believed you were going.

I have spent 30 years working on the trading floor (not as a trader) of some of the biggest investment banks in the world. And I'm telling you that crashes are not manufactured deliberately. The banks lost billions in the 2008 crash - you think they did it on purpose? There was a genuine belief that packaging sub-prime mortgages together into bonds and then spreading the risk through credit derivatives was safe. For 5 years or so Credit Derivatives were the only game in town, replacing Emerging Markets as the hot trading area.

You're wrong also that people pulled out. Mortgages are still bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and indeed one of the last projects I worked on before retiring was an MBS issuance (circa 2017). And credit derivatives still help people manage credit risk.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Until the Left respect democracy, they'll just keep losing elections | Daily Mail Online

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Thank you for pulling back on the claim that powerful people cause recessions deliberately. That's the start of the common antisemitic trope that Jews control the world - which is where I believed you were going.

I have spent 30 years working on the trading floor (not as a trader) of some of the biggest investment banks in the world. And I'm telling you that crashes are not manufactured deliberately. The banks lost billions in the 2008 crash - you think they did it on purpose? There was a genuine belief that packaging sub-prime mortgages together into bonds and then spreading the risk through credit derivatives was safe. For 5 years or so Credit Derivatives were the only game in town, replacing Emerging Markets as the hot trading area.

You're wrong also that people pulled out. Mortgages are still bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and indeed one of the last projects I worked on before retiring was an MBS issuance (circa 2017). And credit derivatives still help people manage credit risk.

I'm not saying that they are 'deliberately' engineered - profiting from growth is far more preferable as it looks better for them as others also benefit. But some will take risks on higher growth/profit than are necessary at times, which from the outset is clearly unsustainable and when that happens those involved will change their position if they see things going south to, at the very least, not lose out or those less scrupulous gain from it if possible by 'betting' on the downturn.

The thing that annoyed me most about the 2008 was the bailout - in the epitome of the free-market huge sums of public money were spent propping up banks that had failed. If they followed their own advice, hedging their bets, diversified their portfolio and kept more liquid security the problems wouldn't have been near as bad and had it been your average Joe using that excuse they'd have been blamed for their lack of financial awareness and prudence. It should've been treated like the dog-eat-dog world it is and treated more like a hostile takeover of a struggling business. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The fact that those sub-prime packages were at any point considered 'safe' just highlights how the industry will be blind to potential problems if they want to be if they think money is to be made. An ounce of common sense tells you that model could not have a long term sustainable future and the only way to profit is to get in and out at the right time. It will undoubtedly happen again with something else in the future.

 

[mrtrench]

I'm not saying that they are 'deliberately' engineered - profiting from growth is far more preferable as it looks better for them as others also benefit. But some will take risks on higher growth/profit than are necessary at times, which from the outset is clearly unsustainable and when that happens those involved will change their position if they see things going south to, at the very least, not lose out or those less scrupulous gain from it if possible by 'betting' on the downturn.

The thing that annoyed me most about the 2008 was the bailout - in the epitome of the free-market huge sums of public money were spent propping up banks that had failed. If they followed their own advice, hedging their bets, diversified their portfolio and kept more liquid security the problems wouldn't have been near as bad and had it been your average Joe using that excuse they'd have been blamed for their lack of financial awareness and prudence. It should've been treated like the dog-eat-dog world it is and treated more like a hostile takeover of a struggling business. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The fact that those sub-prime packages were at any point considered 'safe' just highlights how the industry will be blind to potential problems if they want to be if they think money is to be made. An ounce of common sense tells you that model could not have a long term sustainable future and the only way to profit is to get in and out at the right time. It will undoubtedly happen again with something else in the future.

It's much more complex than you imagine. I'll not go into it now, but 'bet' is the wrong word and positions *are* hedged. Needless to say, risk managers have learned from their mistakes. I agree that private companies should not be bailed out, for free markets to work correctly the weak have to fail. I'd argue that a lack of legislation both contributed to the issue's cause and meant that the banks had to be bailed. I don't think it could happen now that capital ratios are healthier.

 

[clint van damme]

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Until the Left respect democracy, they'll just keep losing elections | Daily Mail Online

You definitely aren't real!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

My view is:

If Momentum are going all in on Long-Bailey she isn't getting my vote in a million years

Starmer has no skeletons in the closet, comes across well and has said that Brexit is shit but he supports making the best of it. With a legal background he would fare well at the despatch box and appear 'Prime Ministerial'

Phillips comes across like an idiot and has form for rambling incoherently

Thornberry can get to fuck-pompous but without the brain to justify it

Nandy-the most interesting of the female candidates but don't know enough about her stances to make a comment. Would like to hear a bit more.

'It needs to be a Northerner in touch with the working classes'-they have just elected an Etonian charlatan who hasn't had a difficult day in his life and who wrote essays for and against Brexit before he calculated which would be best for him personally. So no, it doesn't. Nor does voting for Starmer make one a sexist despite that being the obvious play

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Starmer; Phillips or Nandy for me - the country needs an electable opposition to keep the government honest and on their toes. If it's Long-Bailey or Thornberry, following the same Corbyn agenda, I cannot see Labour getting even close next time around. Ideally it would be a candidate following policies I could vote for. However, despite all the sound and fury, I think that Johnson will be a centrist one-nation PM who will make Labour getting reelected unlikely for years anyway.

I don't know what's more absurd him claiming to be this or people swallowing it. There will be an Irish border poll on this man's watch, at the rate he's going

 

[clint van damme]

My view is:

If Momentum are going all in on Long-Bailey she isn't getting my vote in a million years

Starmer has no skeletons in the closet, comes across well and has said that Brexit is shit but he supports making the best of it. With a legal background he would fare well at the despatch box and appear 'Prime Ministerial'

Phillips comes across like an idiot and has form for rambling incoherently

Thornberry can get to fuck-pompous but without the brain to justify it

Nandy-the most interesting of the female candidates but don't know enough about her stances to make a comment. Would like to hear a bit more.

'It needs to be a Northerner in touch with the working classes'-they have just elected an Etonian charlatan who hasn't had a difficult day in his life and who wrote essays for and against Brexit before he calculated which would be best for him personally. So no, it doesn't. Nor does voting for Starmer make one a sexist despite that being the obvious play

Starmer has a few skeletons in his closet from his time at the CPS and I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more about them if he becomes leader.
On balance I think he'd still be my preferred candidate so I'm not particularly bothered but it's a bit of a stretch to say he has no skeletons.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Starmer has a few skeletons in his closet from his time at the CPS and I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more about them if he becomes leader.
On balance I think he'd still be my preferred candidate so I'm not particularly bothered but it's a bit of a stretch to say he has no skeletons.

I meant in comparison to Jezza

 

[dutchman]

There will be an Irish border poll on this man's watch, at the rate he's going

I fail to see how that is a bad thing?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I fail to see how that is a bad thing?

Depends on your POV. When your schtick is all about maintaining the union, it'd be a bit of a cock up to achieve what Corbyn couldn't.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I fail to see how that is a bad thing?

Strangely enough I value the union and assumed that Brexiteers would more so?

 

[mrtrench]

Starmer has a few skeletons in his closet from his time at the CPS and I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more about them if he becomes leader.
On balance I think he'd still be my preferred candidate so I'm not particularly bothered but it's a bit of a stretch to say he has no skeletons.

We've all done and said some stupid things when we were younger. I was very left wing in my late teens/early 20s and still recall the embarrassment of being called out by a bartender when I was bullshitting some friends that China was a wonderful example of socialism working. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that Keir has put that extreme stuff behind him and is now balanced and considered in his opinions. Quite the difference with the current incumbent.

No aggression or slight intended to anyone who is still very left wing; only speaking from my own opinion.

 

[Liquid Gold]

We've all done and said some stupid things when we were younger. I was very left wing in my late teens/early 20s and still recall the embarrassment of being called out by a bartender when I was bullshitting some friends that China was a wonderful example of socialism working. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that Keir has put that extreme stuff behind him and is now balanced and considered in his opinions. Quite the difference with the current incumbent.

No aggression or slight intended to anyone who is still very left wing; only speaking from my own opinion.

I’m left as left is. Nationalise my breakfast if you want. Still leaning towards Starmer though.