Who will labour choose as their next leader? What does Hexham think of Corbyn?

Curious to see the views of the Hexham locals - notably the Labour + Momentum members. Are you Corbynites? Or are you persuaded by Owen Smith? It is clear from Westminster and locally to re elect Corbyn would be a big mistake but it does appear he is going to win.
This is a report from the Guardian of the recent Gateshead hustings: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/aug/11/labour-leadership-debate-jeremy-corbyn-owen-smith-gateshead-live

The reason Labour MPs / Corbyns former economic advisers oppose Jeremy Corbyn is his ineptitude - in their own words

Two former economic advisors to Jeremy Corbyn have dealt a major blow to the Labour leader by backing his rival, Owen Smith, in the party’s leadership contest. David Blanchflower, who used to be a member of the Bank of England’s MPC, said Corbyn was ‘absolutely, completely unelectable’. Whilst Simon Wren-Lewis told the Guardian the current Labour leader wouldn’t ‘even come close’ to winning a 2020 general election. The labour MPs see this - both in the Commons and on the doorsteps. The unavoidable truth is that Twitter + rallies do not translate into persuasion of the vast majority of the electorate that Corbyn needs to persuade.

Ouch: the Guardian damining on Corbyn's Labour: "Labour isn’t just out of synch with the country. It has landed in a different political time zone."

Fascinating article on the Corbynisation of the Labour Party by the Guardians political editor. Both the Guardian and labour backbenchers:
-"The eggs are broken + Labour will end up having to serve some scrambled version of radical left politics"
This final paragraph is damning:
"Labour is certainly on a long-haul flight to somewhere and MPs are still suffering from jet lag. They are accustomed to politics that meets the deadline of wooing voters in time for an election. That would require dealing with the well-documented reasons why the party lost last May: lack of trust on the economy, immigration, benefits, leadership. But that task hasn’t even begun in earnest. Instead, all sides are consumed by a slow-motion, introspective war of attrition for control of the agenda. It is the kind of combat that Corbyn and his allies know well, while their fidgety opponents are still adjusting to the pace. Those impatient for effective opposition need to reset their watches. Labour isn’t just out of synch with the country. It has landed in a different political time zone."


The full article is here:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/19/jeremy-corbyn-race-control-labour-party

Thoughts on the Labour reshuffle: the evidence is clear - this is a far left /Momentum takeover of a party that used to want to govern

Who thought we would miss the consensus of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls?
They at least managed to keep Kevan Jones, Pat McFadden and others on board. This is a Labour party now utterly bent on self destruction.
3 Shadow Ministers including Jones quit the Party front bench yesterday - 1 on live TV - see the BBC Link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35239232

So we have a situation where:
- At a time when the news agenda is dominated by the threat posed to our way of life by angry, murderous Islamist extremists, the shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden was sacked for rejecting the self-loathing idea that the West, rather than the terrorists, is to blame for Isil’s atrocities.
This was how this was interpreted:

"Sacked Shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden says Corbyn told him he was being fired “because of questions I asked about terrorism… following the Paris terrorist attacks”. This is the question McFadden asked:

“Can I ask the Prime Minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the West do? Does he agree with me that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them as children when the truth is they are adults entirely responsible for what they do. No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut and unless we are clear about that we will fail even to be able to understand the threat we face let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it.”

So, according to McFadden at least, he lost his job because he made a point of refusing to blame the Paris attacks on the West. Corbyn’s people say it was because he was disloyal, which to be fair is not mutually exclusive. The Stop the War takeover over the Labour Party is complete…"

- As North Korea claimed to have detonated its first Hydrogen bomb, Emily Thornberry, who wants Britain unilaterally to give up its nuclear deterrent, was appointed the new shadow defence secretary, replacing Maria Eagle, a supporter of Trident.
- Just in case the direction of travel wasn’t clear, Michael Dugher, one of the last pro-Israel Labour voices, was sacked.
- Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who backed intervention in Syria, survives, but only because the Labour leader was too weak to remove him.
There is no going back from any of this.
Allister Heaths take on this is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12085872/No-self-respecting-politician-could-remain-in-Corbyns-shadow-cabinet.html

In 2016 which way will the Labour Party go? Centre Left or Hard left? Many could become ABC - Anyone but Corbyn

Tony Blair is the most successful Labour Prime Minister ever. He won by persuading people that Labour were interested in the centre ground of politics, did not oppose business, and believed in security, aspiration, academies, competition in the health service, reform of public services, low taxes, and so much more. Recently he wrote a strong defence of his record:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/in-defence-of-blairism-by-tony-blair/


Since Blair's demise, brought down by Gordon Brown, the Labour Party has engaged in a slow and now fast, journey to the hard left, via Brown then Miliband, and now Corbyn. The Labour Party is now led by a man who was a poor joke in the House of Commons from 2010-2015 for his views on so many things, his friendships with everyone from Hamas to Venezuelan Communists, and his disconnect from the realities of economics, security, the need for armed forces and so many more things too numerous to name. The Shadow Chancellor McDonnell cites Chairman Mao, will forever be known for his views on the IRA, and is manifestly worse on economics than Ed Balls. Who could have thought we would look back on Miliband / Balls and think they were not really that bad?


This blog is not an attack on the Corbynbistas, nor is it a defence of Blair. If Momentum and the Corbynistas want to destroy their party then so be it - given their behaviour so far there is little to stop them. But the serious question is where does the Labour Party go in 2016? Because if Corbyn does not improve the standing of the party in Mays elections, then many will say Miliband did well in 2015. My suspicion is that the campaigners for a centre left Labour Party will form an Anyone But Corbyn approach. One thing is clear; all my door knocking shows that Corbyn is not the answer. And it helps no one in this country if Labour is not a proper opposition.

There are now 2 Labour Parties: an analysis by Labour MPs, members + A Green MP

Stop the War is a catchy title, but the reality is that it is a quasi communist group with very dodgy views. It is taking over the Labour Party - led by Corbyn, its previous president.
Take the view of one labour MP, who is in the shadow cabinet:

Michael Dugher MP says…
“What you’ve got to remember about a lot of these people in Stop the War is that they think the wrong people won the cold war … Communism in a modern setting doesn’t have a lot of appeal to me.”

The country's only green MP, Caroline Lucas, is a Long term supporter; a few weeks ago she decided she could no longer serve as a patron of Stop The War, and she stood down

Britain’s only Green MP felt compelled to release a statement saying she had left because of shortage of time and “in light of some of the group’s recent positions.” Specifically, she was “troubled by some statements after the Paris atrocities.”

Lucas was not the only one to baulk at a blog, later removed, blaming the Paris atrocities on “western support for extremist violence in the Middle East.” She appeared to be following Peter Tatchell, a fellow crusader, that the group she supported wholeheartedly for so long has “lost its moral compass."

This week Dan Hodges has ended his relationship with labour as a member. He is the son of the MP Glenda jackson. His article is damning in its criticism of where Labour is going: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12051510/Jeremy-Corbyn-has-become-the-Lefts-Enoch-Powell.html

Scottish elections next May are the make or break for far left Labour leadership

Most Labour MPs in the Commons see next May as the crucial test for Jeremy Corbyn's new look far left Labour Party. If Labour wins in Scotland with its far left approach then Corbyn buys himself some time, and evidence can be found that this is both what he believes, and what part of the country believes. Put simply, his approach is that we are going to give far left socialism one more big heave.
So the Scottish Labour Party conference yesterday in Perth was worth a good look.
The report does not make good reading: http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/jeremy-corbyn-comes-to-scotland-and-discovers-he-has-nothing-to-say/
This passage particularly resonates in the report:

"Labour are trapped. They cannot Out-Nat the Nats and they cannot Out-Unionist the Tories. So what can they do? Where does Labour find its voice? And if it can find its voice what will it actually say?

One thing was made clear in Perth today: Jeremy Corbyn is not the answer. But then you knew that already. His speech was, er, remarkable. It was a speech aimed at – and let’s be generous here – 15 percent of voters. Those voters who think a Spartist shouting “SOCIALISM” is the winning response to a Natjob crying “FREEDOM”.

Or, as Corbyn put it, according to the version of his speech distributed to journalists this afternoon, “Friends, if you want socialist change, if you want a left wing alternative, you have to vote for it.”

On security + Trident Labour party policy / shadow cabinet support Trident / Army but Corbyn against: who wins?

Jeremy Corbyn has made it very clear he would not use our nuclear deterrent. He also has made some pretty clear comments concerning the use of our armed forces, and even their continued existence.
The Labour Party previously believed security, as provided by Trident, was an important issue. It has a previously settled policy on this. At the start of the labour conference, we were told by Jeremy Corbyn that Labour Party members, via their annual conference, would now be taking control of Labour Party policy. In particular, he said he would welcome a vote on the issue of Labour’s support for the principle of nuclear deterrence. But then he suddenly realised that if there was a specific vote on the issue, he’d lose it. So that particular exercise in internal democracy was hastily shelved.
In other words it is "I agree with the party ruling until it decides something I disagree with?"
His views on the army, defending our country and security and trident are well known and were made very clear this week. The problem is that the leader is at opposition with his own cabinet. For me the reaction of his shadow cabinet was actually by far the most interesting point on this issue.

The TV stations interviewed the shadow cabinet en masse at labour conference:
- Andy Burnham, who is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow home secretary. His leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, he said.
- Next was a clip of Maria Eagle. She is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow defence secretary. Her leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, she said.
- Next was a clip of Hilary Benn. He is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow foreign secretary. His leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, he said.
- Next was a clip of Angela Eagle. She is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow first secretary of state. Her leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, she said.
- Next was a clip of Lord Falconer. He is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow Lord Chancellor. His leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, he said.
- Next was a clip of Heidi Alexander. She is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow health secretary. Her leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, she said.


The full story is here, but to use the old phrase - in this debate between Corbyn and his MPs / party something's got to give:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11904045/If-Jeremy-Corbyn-cant-change-Labours-mind-on-Trident-he-must-stand-down.html

Labour peer Lord Alan Sugar on the Corbyn effect - we should all move if he becomes PM

Sugar, the self made millionaire and peer appointed by Gordon Brown does not mince his words:


"Corbyn and his policies would be the thing that shuts the whole thing down,” he said. “If they ever got anywhere near electing him and him being the Prime Minister then I think we should all move to China or somewhere like that and let this place just rot.”
He also told the newspaper Labour’s mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan could exacerbate the threat of Mr Corbyn.
“If you want the market to stop then you’ve got Batman and Robin in those two,” he added.
The businessman also appeared on ITV’s This Morning, where he accused Mr Corbyn of wanting to “go back 40 years”.
More of the story here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11904085/Lord-Sugar-We-should-all-move-to-China-if-Jeremy-Corbyn-becomes-Prime-Minister.html

Corbynomics is failed trotskyite economic theory by another name - and more people should be taking him on

The reality of economics, and politics, is that when something appears too good to be true it is too good to be true. The ideas that Corbyn is putting forward in his quest for the Labour Party leadership have been seen before in countries like Russia, Greece, Venezuela - all countries who have tested to destruction the theory that he now espouses. I will attempt a short appraisal, with help from a few sources:

1.Quantitative easing for people: in reality print more money for the people, and create more public debt. The reality is that this will have an inevitable impact on inflation and the examples of countries who have tried this is a salutary lesson.

This approach was also debunked by the Shadow Chancellor, Chris Leslie MP, a Labour MP who is not exactly a free market guru: Leslie said:

"I’m afraid some of those solutions, the policies offered on the hard left are not all that they’re cracked up to be. In fact, they risk hurting some of the most poor, the most vulnerable, those on the lowest incomes.

Take, for example, this suggestion that there should be the people’s quantitative easing – in other words, the Bank of England should be able to just turn on the printing presses and magically deal with all the public service and public investment needs that we have. 

Of course, at one level it sounds fantastically easy: if there’s a shortage of money, print some more; the difficulty is if that then provokes higher inflation, if that then means interest rates go up, who will pay the price for that? It’s the poorest and those on the lowest incomes who already find the cost of living very difficult. And I think it’s that sort of issue we now need to confront.’

2. Increase taxes for businesses: - strip out all of the tax reliefs and subsidies on offer to small and larger employers. These allegedly amount to "£93 billion a year – money which would be better used in direct public investment, which in turn would give a stimulus to private sector supply chains".

The full Corbyn quote is here:
‘You just cannot cut your way to prosperity so Britain needs a publicly-led expansion and reconstruction of the economy, with a big rise in investment levels. Under these plans Labour 2020 will make large reductions in the £93 billion of corporate tax relief and subsidies.’

- So why would you set up and / or expand a business in the UK? We are in a competititve global market. If a busniess is going to be taxed to extinction then why come to the UK? Again these poilices have been tried and failed. Remember the Labour chancellor Denis Healy asserting in the 1970's that he would "Squeeze business until the pips came out!" Britain went bankrupt and ended up needing an IMF bailout.

3. Bear down on small businesses: Corbyn wants to reform small business taxation to discourage avoidance and tackle tax evasion.
- So it is an attack on SMEs up and down the country as well, the corner shops, the small businessman and woman? Our country needs more help to SMEs not less; if every small business takes on another worker, another apprentice we will all benefit. The problem is that Corbyn is attacking those small businesses.

4. There is a call for greater regulation, a stonger and more powerful role for trade unions, and generally the state knows best on everything.

- I think that a country's economy and businesses are created by its people and their aspiration and entrepreneurship not by forced actions of the state - Corbyn definitely does not think this.

5. I don't even want to start with foreign policy issues, and the Corbyn friendships with everyone from the Hamas to Sinn Fein / IRA. But hopefully you get the drift.

It is a depressing sight that not enough people, even within the Labour party, are taking this claptrap on. I can only repeat that a win for Corbyn would be a disaster for the Labour Party, but also very bad news for the country. I, as a Conservative, want a reasoned intelligent opposition, not something led by a failed communist who is a laughing stock in the House of Commons.