back to article Labour Party website DDoS'd by ruly democratic mob

The interminable registration process for voters for the new Labour Party leader's election did not terminate this noon, as was planned, due to the party website dropping offline, following an effective, if accidental, DDoS attack from a flood of well-meaning visits generated by eager, if incredibly tardy, new supporters. The …

  1. joeldillon

    Err the election isn't for ages yet. What was due to end was the process of defining the electorate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Already spent my £3. I would save that in a few hours if voting for Corbyn keeps Labour out of government...

      1. AndrueC Silver badge
        Joke

        I would save that in a few hours if voting for Corbyn keeps Labour out of government...

        Nationalisation and a government spending spree. What's not to like?

        :D

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I would save that in a few hours if voting for Corbyn keeps Labour out of government...

        Well, the pollsters and the media were absolutely convinced that Millibrain and his motley shower of piss were going to win the last election. And they weren't the only ones. My employers did their own forecasting and reached the same conclusion, and even spent the year up to May cultivating relationships with the Labour party. Now they've wasted their lobbying budget smarming up the losers, and have zero engagement with the governing party. I wouldn't ever assume that the public's intentions can be accurately predicted, particularly five years out.

        What happens when in four and a half years time, the electorate are getting tired of Cameron and Osbourne, we've had a wearisome, thoroughly botched referendum on the EU whose conduct and outcome please not a single voter, and then that ghastly, smarmy c*nt of a prime minister reneges on his promise not to seek relection?

        Voting Corbyn in puts him within shouting distance of number 10.

        1. TheVogon

          "Voting Corbyn in puts him within shouting distance of number 10."

          And hopefully that's the nearest he will ever get. I mean seriously - renationalise £180 billion of stuff?! As if Labour governments don't waste enough money anyway. And since when have governments ever been good at running anything? His list of ideals reads like a communist party manifesto.

          The Conservatives would have to screw up REALLY badly for that to ever be remotely possible. It's more likely UKIP will be in government than Corbyn will ever be Prime Minister.

  2. jason 7

    Can someone answer this question?

    When Corbyn came to Norwich last week everyone was heralding him as the second coming. How he would deliver the sick and poor from starvation and cruelty. How he would pump money back into the welfare state and tell the rich/Tories to go away etc. etc.

    But no one could answer the one question I had about it all.

    Just where is this great economic boom (supposedly with a highly left wing leader) for Great Britain going to come from exactly to pay for it all?

    It all goes very quiet at that point.

    I don't think most people in the West have realised that lifestyles for 99% are going to be on a downward trend for the future. Things are not going to get better.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Boffin

      @jason 7 - Re: Can someone answer this question?

      "Just where is this great economic boom for Great Britain with a Right-wing, neo-liberal austerity loving chancellor like George Osborne going to come from instead of concentrating the majority of the wealth in the off-shore bank accounts of a small minority?

      "It all goes very quiet at that point."

      FTFY

      (PS I'll say again that I have no more love for Labour or Corbyn than I do for the Tories and Cameron or the Lib Dems and... err, whoever, but until we have a bigger choice of people to vote for than the Blue Tories, the Red Tories or the Purple Tories or the Yellow idiots who got shafted by the Tories, then nothing is going to improve.)

    2. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Can someone answer this question?

      First, it's defeatest to think nothing can get better. If everyone thought like that we'd still be rocking 286 IBM PC's in 2015. There would be no internet etc.

      Anyway, since George Osborne put forward his budget and removed tax benefits for the lower paid people of the UK, on average they will be £2,000 worse off over the year. That's about £166 a month.

      Now that family, now £166 a month worse off, won't be able to purchase £166 of goods from local shops, or visit other parts of the country and pump that money in to the local economy. Local businesses could see a decline in takings, meaning staff could lose paid hours as businesses look to cut costs. The staff, now with their wages affected negatively, will look to reduce their spending. So as you can see, the cycle repeats.

      Now at the top of the tree, there are people who make a lot of money. And fair play to them, I'd like to be one of them in the future. But they continue to make more money, but that money isn't returned to the country of it's origin. It's syphoned abroad or through other avenues to cheat the Revenue out of tax.

      Mr.Osborne can see this, tax takings are down, and it becomes public knowledge that people are avoding the payment of tax. He has to be seen to do something, but unfortunately those people he has to act against also keep the Conservatives in money in one form or another. So the Chancellor does act, but goes to reduce benefits paid out by the Government. He can then say "well we've saved £12 billion this year by doing this". Fair enough, but they're still losing £30 billion+ from the non-payment of taxes. But, this action then continues the previous cycle, it doesn't stop it.

      So what Corbyn is suggesting is that for once someone stands up to these people and we start to claim back what's rightfully owed to the country. Big business pays it's way, more taxes that were owed in the first place come back to the country which means benefits can be returned to those who need it, and public services can improve. Obviously Big Business will say "Well if you do that we'll leave the country". This wouldn't actually happen though, because like all bad relationships the abuser makes empty threats expecting the abused to cower to the demands.

      It is said, and it's argued by the Tories, that wealth trickles down. That we are in a trickle down economy. It's pure crap. People at the bottom, support those above. And it's the money from the bottom that goes up, it doesn't come down. It's never trickled down in the last 10 years, last 40 years, last 200 years.

      So, maybe you haven't had a clear cut answer to your question, and I feel I haven't given you one either. But what I hope to have given you is a brief explanation as to what is happening in this country in regards to finances. There is plenty of money in this country, it's just it's going outwards. And not to the unemployed, not to the immigrants, but to the very people who make the most of the money and who won't give it back.

      1. Schlimnitz

        Re: Can someone answer this question?

        I've read that not only is 'trickle down' a myth, but it's also a myth that any Tory ever believed it...

        Technological breakthroughs 'trickle down' (rich people get the new toys first), but not wealth.

        1. Jason Hindle

          Re: Trickle Down Economics

          "I've read that not only is 'trickle down' a myth, but it's also a myth that any Tory ever believed it...

          Technological breakthroughs 'trickle down' (rich people get the new toys first), but not wealth."

          Trickle down economics is hard to quantify. I'm sure Mr. Worstall would argue that being able to afford a better gizmo than last year, is a measure of wealth. Of course, by that argument, so is a house, especially if you don't own one already. I think it would be more accurate to say the wealth that really matters trickles upwards, while a better standard of living often trickles downwards. A good standard of living, without wealth, is a little precarious*.

          * Case in point: working tax credits provide a better standard of living, but are very easy to take away. I suppose Greece is also a case in point, on a grander scale. For an individual, being leveraged up to the eyeballs, via a mortgage, is pretty precarious.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Trickle Down Economics

            @ Jason Hindle

            "I think it would be more accurate to say the wealth that really matters trickles upwards, while a better standard of living often trickles downwards"

            I have to question that statement, a better standard of living is wealth. Shelter of improving quality, food of better quality, other essentials of better quality and of course the ever expanding not essential but nice to have's have all been expanding to the lower and lower classes. Can you imagine our poor living as actual poor people? There are many world wide and capitalism is dragging them slowly out of poverty where it is being allowed to. School is a very good example of this where our poor wear the wrong type of trainer, in a poor country they cant even get to the school never mind dreaming of footwear.

      2. jason 7

        Re: Can someone answer this question?

        But if Corbyn 'goes after' the big corporations surely they will just slap him down and tell him not to be a naughty puppy.

        Who has the power? Those who hold all the money of course...and can move it where they please.

        1. Naughtyhorse

          Re:Who has the power?

          Absolutely correct, assuming they have 0 customers.

          1. jason 7

            Re: Re:Who has the power?

            Worldwide corporations are pretty well designed to sustain a level of unrest in one country. Most can weather the public's outcry till apathy (which comes around quicker year by year) and normality return.

            Especially if jobs are at stake.

            By the way I'm not supporting the corporations here. It's just that they are the real power now. Politics is largely just a PR exercise. A side cost of doing business.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Can someone answer this question?

          Contrary to what the papers try to tell you, despite the millions spent on lobbying politico's, the gov'ts in the loosely termed Western world still hold the power.

          The likes of HSBC can huff and puff, but where else can they go? Their only options are stable states with an effective rule of law.

          This is why so many South Africans were upset when Omar al-Bashir was allowed to flee the country, it revealed their gov't to be hollow and makes external investors doubt the gov'ts future promises.

          The flip side of the coin is the continued pursuit of the murderers of Alexander Litvinenko by the UK. It would be much easier on UK/ Russia relations to brush it under the carpet. But investors like to see a gov't act in a robust fashion, it makes their investments feel safe.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Can someone answer this question?

        "Anyway, since George Osborne put forward his budget and removed tax benefits for the lower paid people of the UK, on average they will be £2,000 worse off over the year. That's about £166 a month.

        Now that family, now £166 a month worse off, won't be able to purchase £166 of goods from local shops, or visit other parts of the country and pump that money in to the local economy."

        Actually, "on average" people are better off under the budget. The only people hit for £2,000 are contractors via Limited companies...

        However, imagine how much worse the effect you outline would be under Labour, who would massively increase taxes across those that have far more spending power.

        The problem with socialism is always the same - eventually you run out of someone else's money to spend...

        1. Graham Marsden
          Thumb Down

          @AC - Re: Can someone answer this question?

          > "on average" people are better off under the budget

          Which is about as meaningful as saying that "on average nobody has two legs" because there are people who have fewer than two.

          Telling people who are working in Minimum Wage jobs or on Zero Hours contracts that they should be happy because, "on average" people are better off, whilst they're living virtually hand to mouth with little money for luxuries, let alone to be able to save for a mortgage etc is not going to wash.

          Still, as Douglas Adams said "Nobody was poor, at least nobody worth speaking of."

          1. jonathanb Silver badge

            Re: @AC - Can someone answer this question?

            Now tell the middle-England majority who pay for all these benefits that they should care that a small number of people are worse off because these benefits have been cut.

            1. Graham Marsden

              @jonathanb - Re: @AC - Can someone answer this question?

              > Now tell the middle-England majority who pay for all these benefits that they should care that a small number of people are worse off because these benefits have been cut.

              As opposed to them saying "Fuck you, I'm alright Jack!"?

      4. DavCrav

        Re: Can someone answer this question?

        "Obviously Big Business will say "Well if you do that we'll leave the country". This wouldn't actually happen though, because like all bad relationships the abuser makes empty threats expecting the abused to cower to the demands."

        But this is obviously ridiculous. If you really did successfully clamp down on tax avoidance, and somehow got the international tax treaties changed, then in the intervening years where major corporations are staring down the barrel of multi-billion pound tax bills, and they would need to be to fund Mr Corbyn's massive spending spree (or else he turns on so-called People's QE, i.e., an actual magic money tree from which inflation-proof spending can be plucked), and corporations make the decision as whether London's various pluses are worth the considerable costs. For some companies, they will decide yes, but many will run away quickly, especially those like HSBC, which makes most of its money abroad anyway.

        And this is the problem with expecting the most mobile and cunning sector of the population (the ultra-rich and multinationals) to furnish you with all your tax receipts. They often refuse, and can afford to do so. Mr Corbyn and his policies are simply not suitable for the modern world. At no point have I heard him say that he would gather international support to change tax agreements, which he would need in order to do any of the things he promises, however vaguely he does this promising. To go after a multinational company you need a multinational attack.

        1. Graham Marsden

          Re: Can someone answer this question?

          > To go after a multinational company you need a multinational attack.

          So because you "heard him say that he would gather international support to change tax agreements" means he's not going to do it? Or maybe you haven't looked very hard.

          From a recent speech he made, two policies on tax he wants to introduce:

          "The introduction of a proper anti-avoidance rule into UK tax law.

          "The aim of country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations"

          I think "country-by-country reporting" sounds like he's doing exactly what you say.

          1. DavCrav

            Re: Can someone answer this question?

            ""The aim of country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations"

            I think "country-by-country reporting" sounds like he's doing exactly what you say."

            You mean like this?

            https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/country-by-country-reporting

            Or do you mean a different country-by-country reporting?

            1. Graham Marsden
              WTF?

              @DavCrav - Re: Can someone answer this question?

              > You mean like this?

              So there already *is* what you want?

              So what exactly do you want him to say he's going to do which is different???

              1. DavCrav

                Re: @DavCrav - Can someone answer this question?

                "So there already *is* what you want?

                So what exactly do you want him to say he's going to do which is different???"

                Country-by-country reporting is not an international agreement to close loopholes and amend treaties. In other words, Mr Corbyn has said nothing more than "I'll give it a go" as to *how* he's going to collect £100bn or more from corporations, most of which I would guess don't want to give him that money. It's rather like saying "I will catch more criminals if elected to office". How?

                As far as I can tell, My Corbyn is exactly like anyone else on the Left, which is to say, all talk no trousers. When it comes down to it, there's never any detail as to how exactly all this will come about. It's just like the Greens, with their manifesto pledge to outlaw lending not done by the government.

                Edit: And another thing, while I'm on my soapbox. You are the one who brought up country-by-country reporting, as something he suggested, not me. I pointed out that it's already done. In this case, Mr Corbyn needs to do something *different* to what is already being done. As a member of the electorate, it is not up to me to make suggestions as to what he will do, but up to me to decide whether his policies are sound.

                The only explicit, cogent policies of his I have heard are: renationalize the railways, which might make sense, but he's hardly the only one saying it, and buy up the energy sector, to solve his perceived problem of high energy prices (energy prices in the UK are about average in the EU). It is not quite clear how, with energy companies' profits per household being about £40, spending £120bn or more renationalizing it would be of any use at all. And let's not forget People's QE, the inflationary debt cancellation mechanism that throws the BoE's independence under a bus so that the Government can make ill-advised investments with the money.

                Edit 2: One last thing. I couldn't help but notice this: "The introduction of a proper anti-avoidance rule into UK tax law." as a Corbyn policy. That's idle talk unless he can miraculously write the perfect tax law. Note: no other country has managed it yet.

                1. Graham Marsden

                  Re: @DavCrav - Can someone answer this question?

                  > As far as I can tell, My Corbyn is exactly like anyone else on the Left, which is to say, all talk no trousers. When it comes down to it, there's never any detail as to how exactly all this will come about.

                  And yet we have the neo-liberal Right still claiming that they can cut their way to prosperity and make everyone "on average" better off by concentrating all the wealth in the hands of a few, whilst everyone else gets screwed.

                  Oh and, as someone said "As a member of the electorate, it is not up to me to make suggestions as to what he will do, but up to me to decide whether his policies are sound."

    3. Naughtyhorse

      Re: Can someone answer this question?

      Which speaks volumes as to the efficiency of right wing propaganda and says nothing whatsoever about the subject.

      Just imagine Corbin in No. 10 and Bernie Sanders at 1600 pen ave.

      if the prospect scares you, that's because you are part of the problem.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Can someone answer this question?

        "if the prospect scares you, that's because you are part of the problem."

        Presumably then, the problem as you see it is a preponderance of sanity?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can someone answer this question?

      it's not a surprise the left in Norwich turned out to see a paragon of the old ways. Looking at the parliamentary position, south Norwich (the university end) is a red blob in a sea of blue. They probably thought they'd been forsaken.

      1. Naselus

        Re: Can someone answer this question?

        "Looking at the parliamentary position, south Norwich (the university end) is a red blob in a sea of blue. "

        Kinda sounds like Corbyn in the modern Labour party, tbh.

  3. Unep Eurobats

    It's £3.88 a month

    I suppose you could join, vote and then cancel. Are people actually doing that?

    1. Tom Wood

      Re: It's £3.88 a month

      That's for a full membership. You can pay a minimum of £3 to become a "supporter" which means you get a vote in the leadership contest but none of the other perks of membership.

    2. Naselus

      Re: It's £3.88 a month

      "I suppose you could join, vote and then cancel. Are people actually doing that?"

      The real answer is largely no, tbh.

      The Labour party have cancelled the 'supporter' status of about 1200 people - most of them Green voters who left the labour party in the last couple of elections, and UKIPer's who did much the same thing. The labour party has just shy of 200,000 members, and about 200,000 more 'affliated supporters', so that 1200 people account for about 0.25% of the potential turnout for the vote. The nonsense about infiltration from the Tories and the Far Left is largely a desperate attempt to explain why no-one wants to vote for the three identical clowns opposing Corbyn; the same is true of the rather tragic attempts to postpone or cancel the vote because the wrong person might win it.

      It really doesn't matter where your personal politics lie, tbh; this leadership contest has pretty much shown New Labourism to be ideologically dead ground. It's been discredited to hell and back, and largely leaves people choosing between voting Tory or voting for these guys who largely agree with the Tories but are very slightly nicer about it. You can believe Corbyn's economic plans might work (as many economists do), or you can believe they will be a complete disaster (as many other economists do), but at least it's an actual choice; back in May, the question was largely "Do you want David Cameron to screw you from behind, or do you want Ed Miliband to screw you from behind in exactly the same way?". Most older labour voters are no longer up for voting for Tory policies wrapped in a red hanky.

  4. Yugguy

    it may backfire?

    Although I am not, and will very likely never be, a Labour voter, I respect Corbyn far more than I did Tory Blair.

    At least Corbyn is a proper left-winger, he might very well bring back some of the lost Labour voters who were disechanted with the basic tory-lite Labour party of recent years.

    1. jason 7

      Re: it may backfire?

      But how long has he got before all those hard left labour voters have died out?

    2. Chris Miller

      Re: it may backfire?

      Labour has a massive problem. To win a UK election they need to recover at least some of their seats in Scotland, where they were portrayed by the SNP as 'Red Tories' - Corbyn might help them to achieve this. But in England, their votes were leaking away to UKIP, from those Labour voters who feel (rightly or wrongly) threatened by immigration - Corbyn will only acerbate this problem. And their biggest issue is that they weren't trusted on the economy, and Corbyn would make this far, far worse because he's an economic illiterate, his economic policies having been devised by a failed accountant.

      Similarly, if they tack right with some of the other leadership candidates, they may regain seats in England, but will remain locked out of Scotland. Corbyn may appeal to the Russell Brand 'none of the above' voters (if any), but there are already established parties occupying this ground - UKIP, Greens, LibDems - and it's hard to see anyone winning an election from there.

      In a word, they're stuffed. Labour is dead, but they haven't quite realised it yet.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: it may backfire?

        I douobt Labour are dead. People were making just the same silly point about the Conservatives, round about 2003. They'd never win an election again etc...

        In a two party system, there will be an opposition party eventually, because people will want to "vote the bastards out". And of course, to go for PR, and not have a 2 party system, means some party (or coalition of parties) winning an election and giving us PR.

        So it's possible that Labour may irretrievably split, say Corbyn wins and a huge chunk of the Blairites and Brownites bugger off to form another party, or invade the Lib Dems. But then that new party will become the opposition. What's more likely though is that Labour will have some sort of internal strife for a few years, and then come to a conclusion of who they want to be, then campaign and win an election.

        There's an argument that they could agree to try and win, get PR and then split up. After all Labour are made up of several distinct groups of people. But then so are the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the SNP and UKIP.

        It seems to me that the voters aren't willing to accept socialism. As in strong union power, heavy regulation or state control of business, very high taxes and lots of government spending. That seems to be what Corbyn stands for, and if he's Labour leader they therefore can't win. But maybe enough of his supporters won't believe that until they've actually lost an election on that platform.

        I strongly suspect that Labour could win on Miliband's platform of being to the left of Blair, but still believing in a market economy. But with higher taxes and a bit more regulation. However Miliband himself was rated in all the polls when he was leader as being a rubbish leader (and being less popular than his party - so actively losing them votes).

        Also they had no answer on the economy. Whatever the truth of it, the public came to believe that Labour over-spent but wouldn't admit it. And that cuts were necessary, which Labour in opposition opposed almost all of. In my opinion this was because Miliband had no coherent economic policy, and so couldn't convince the electorate to trust him, but even if he was the greatest leader ever, recovering from a heavy defeat like 2010 is very hard, especially after so long in office, and so it was going to be very hard to win in 2015 as the economy was growing.

        But I'd say Miliband is the furthest left the Corbyn supporters can get (similar to John Smith say), and win an election. If they're happy to put up with that eventually, Labour will be back in power in a few years.

        P.S. I don't think the Scottish electorate are that much to the left of the rest of us. The SNP seem to be more nationalist than they are socialist. But even if I'm wrong, Labour had a small majority in 2005, even without any Scottish seats - which won't be going to the Conservatives after all. And they won that election on a smaller percentage of the vote, and a much smaller lead, than Cameron got an absolute majority with in 2015. So a victory in England and Wales alone is perfectly possible. They just need the marginals in the Midlands and North, which are Tory/Labour ones.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: it may backfire?

        "But in England, their votes were leaking away to UKIP, from those Labour voters who feel (rightly or wrongly) threatened by immigration"

        The amusing thing being that Labour under Blair deliberately let in a million non EU immigrants into the UK, assuming that they would mostly vote Labour. Unfortunately for Labour they have mostly turned out not to be benefit scrounging layabouts though...

        1. Elmer Phud

          Re: it may backfire?

          Odd that, it seems that they contribute more to the economy than the locals, they also are less likely to be unemployed.

          So are they lazy shits or are they taking our jobs?

          Make yer mind up.

        2. jason 7

          Re: it may backfire?

          I find the whole immigration thing bemusing and amusing.

          The two sections of the public that appear to be the most anti-immigration are -

          The retired.

          The Underclass.

          Now the retired are...retired so no worry about them with regards to "their takin' our jerbs!"

          The underclass? Well is that single mother of five going to get up at 4am to pick cabbages for minimum wage or be able to clean offices from 5pm till 11pm?

          Nope.

          A classic case of political manipulation if ever there was one.

      3. LucreLout

        Re: it may backfire?

        @Chris Miller

        In a word, they're stuffed. Labour is dead, but they haven't quite realised it yet.

        Pretty much, yes. They still haven't realised the fastest way to get the Tories out of power is to disband labour. They can never be trusted with the economy: It's what, three times in a row now they've left the economy utterly destroyed. There's always an excuse, but its transparantly inevitable - all labour governments end in economic depression and fiscal ruin. Disbanding Labour would allow new opposition to form in Scotland seperate from a new opposition in England.

        If labour must continue, then instead of labour supporters making excuses for wrecking the economy (It wuz the bankaaaahs), tell me where labour went wrong, what they have learned from it, and how they can ensure the next time they leave power the country is not on its knees. No? I didn't think so, and that is why they'll never win back trust.

        2020 is already over. 2025 would be very ambitious. 2030... well, depending on EVEL, the referendum, and Scottish Independence, it could all be over for Labour by then. The labour party doesn't know what it stands for, doesn't know where it wants to go, and doesn't even know why it still exists.

        As the only way to maintain a well functioning government is to have a well functioning opposition, this farce is a detriment to us all. We need a credible opposition, with credible plans, and a clear reason to be.... It'll be decades before anyone can seriously claim that the labour party are credible. Decades. And that will be good for nobody.

        1. strum

          Re: it may backfire?

          >all labour governments end in economic depression and fiscal ruin

          Bollocks. I'm no Labour supporter, but I am a student of history - and I can't let this Tory cant go unchallenged.

          [As background, let us acknowledge that all UK govts have been, on average, very average.]

          Let's look at those 'last three':-

          1964-1970 - Unquestionably a success. The UK economy was 'virtually bankrupt' in 1964 - in the words of the then Chancellor, Selwyn Lloyd. By 1970, the economy was chirping along (though many labourites blamed Roy Jenkins for failing to deliver an election budget).

          1974-1979 - After Tony Barber & Edward Heath had royally screwed the economy, intitiating a decade of inflation (with a little help from the oil sheiks), Labour gradually recovered the situation (with a little help from the IMF). True, Labour deserved to lose in 1979, but not because of a failing economy. The 'Winter of Discontent' was largely an invention of the Daily Express.

          1997-2010 - A closer-run thing. Ken Clarke had dragged the UK out of long-term recession by 1997 (using some very un-Tory policies), and the global crash of 2008 spolied a run of prosperous years. But there's little doubt that the economy was better in 2010 than in 1997. Labour didn't crash the economy. They didn't overspend (by much). They might have regulated more (but the Tories would have regulated even less).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: it may backfire?

      Like you, I have some respect for Corbyn but the main reason I would support him is because he seems to actually believe in something; a factor noticably absent from New Labour since Blair.

      In the last election, with the LibDems having already shown that they didn't actually stand for anything either, the choice was between a party lead by the least sincere politician I've ever seen and a party lead by someone who's competence to wipe his own bottom was questionable. The overwhelming win for the SNP in Scotland was hardly a surprise given the combination of Scotland's inclination towards socialism and a party leader who appeared to stand for more than just winning control.

      Funnily enough, all of those Nu Labour members bleeting their warnings that Corbyn would just make Labour unelectable just highlighted the problem with the Labour party; voters will ask themselves why should I vote for you when you don't actually stand for anything?

      Ultimately though, I can't see Labour ever getting elected again, regardless of whether Corbyn becomes party leader; people are just too selfish and greedy, wherein lies the Tory party's sucess. However, if Corbyn does get the leadership and comes up with plausible policies then Labour might be able be able to dent the complete autonomy that the tories now have and reign them in a bit.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: it may backfire?

        Like you, I have some respect for Corbyn but the main reason I would support him is because he seems to actually believe in something;

        What, like The Austrian? He had very clear beliefs. Sadly that episode of electing a charismatic ideologist didn't work out so well, did it?

        Godwin defence:

        1) It's an appropriate point

        2) I didn't name He Who Must Not Be Named

        1. Yugguy

          Re: it may backfire?

          If Labour immolate then the Tories will have no opposition, and even I don't want that. I actually quite liked the coalition in that the Liberals tamed the worst excesses of the Tories and the Tories kept the Liberals' feet on the ground.

          1. LucreLout

            Re: it may backfire?

            If Labour immolate then the Tories will have no opposition

            For 2020? No, they won't. But they already have no opposition for that with the Labour party.

            Could labour win in 2025? Very unlikely at this point, whereas a new opposition could, assuming it was a centrist party with no union involvement.

            Labour, assuming Corbyn wins, will struggle for unity. They will get obliterated in 2020, and then all out civil war will reign. That's 2025 knackered, at best. It's wholly possible that it's a civil war Labour won't survive.

            What will the left understand from that rout? Will they understand that the world has moved on from socialism and 1970s unionised blackmail? I doubt it.

            And so to the Blairites. After the 2025 debacle they will rightly be expecting the left of the party to die gracefully, and look towards a permanent move to the centre ground. Closing the book on the unions will by then be the only way they can convince us to trust them with the economy.

            Labour will split because its one party with two ideologies, locked in a death spiral, with each side blaming the other for their misfortune. Blair brought the unions to heel, for just long enough to hold power until the Conservatives disintegrated, after which they went ballastic with the non-jobs and public sector pay rises again. Winning back voters trust on the economy means leaving Big Len in the history books.

            If the party splits, there will be no opposition for many parliaments, because the unionised public sector party will have half the votes and the credible half of the party will have half the votes; neither will have enough votes to win seats.

            You'd certainly not start a new party with the competing and irreconcilable differences within Labour, so why continue an old one? The fastest route to power seems to be a new centrist party, free of the past failures of unionism.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: it may backfire?

        I must, having just listened to Corbyn trying to avoid giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, rescind any support for him that I previously asserted. He's just another fscking politician.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As for the other candidates 'clubbing together'

    Whatever happened to 'May The Best Person Win'?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As for the other candidates 'clubbing together'

      He's not the best person, he couldn't even get the required number of nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party without some members donating their vote to him to "widen the debate".

      He'd be a disaster, and I say that as somebody who is gainfully employed and would like to stay that way.

      He's only winning because the Unions want him. The vast majority of general election voters won't.

      1. LucreLout

        Re: As for the other candidates 'clubbing together'

        He's only winning because the Unions want him. The vast majority of general election voters won't.

        And that, ultimately, is the root of Corbyns problem. He simply isn't electable to the public. He may say all the things lefties love to hear - big state, high taxes, lavish welfare, but the wider electorate know that socialism doesn't work and they won't vote for it.

        Labour, if it is to ever win power again, must elect a leader who appeals to people like me (Floating voters who have previously ticked red boxes and now tick blue). To do that, it will have to give up socialism, trade unionism, and high taxes. Blair knew that, so he lied. He lied while labour quietly returned to form (around '99) and carried on lying until the money started to run out, at which point he left Gordon holding the baby.

        Labour need to back things like the reforms to strike laws, the welfare bill etc, and start taking ownership of their weakest areas (the economy, immigration, etc) instead of blaming everyone else for them. Ultimately, the poor suffer more than the rich for a broken economy, so its in labours own interest to start learning from their mistakes instead of repeating them adfinitum.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: swing voters

          "Labour, if it is to ever win power again, must elect a leader who appeals to people like me (Floating voters who have previously ticked red boxes and now tick blue). "

          Swing voters like yourself are now vastly outnumbered by people who have either never voted, or who have recently stopped voting, in either case "because there's no one worthing voting for because they're all the same".

          Corbyn, whatever else you think about him, is not "all the same".

          The Tories get their money directly and indirectly from the finance sector, as everybody knows and as the Electoral Commission website will confirm.

          The party-within-a-party, Progress Ltd, (Blair, Mandelson, Burnham, etc) get their hundreds of thousands a year from Lord Sainsbury and a bit more from Lord Mandelson and from fine organisations like the British Venture Capital Association (again, Electoral Commission).

          Corbyn's leadership campaign has raised £130K in the last few weeks in small donations from large numbers of increasingly motivated members of The Great British Public. When did something like that last happen? Apparently this frightens Labour Party HQ. I can see why that would be. Democracy is potentially frightening to the establishment if people actually want it done right.

          Fwiw the Conservative Party membership in the UK is now at its lowest level for decades. The *increase* in Labour membership since the election is bigger than the total Tory membership.

          1. LucreLout

            Re: swing voters

            @AC

            Corbyn, whatever else you think about him, is not "all the same".

            Oh, sure, he stands out from the crowd, but that's an easy trick to pull. I could come to work naked, and guarantee I'd not "be the same" as everyone else.... You'll have to take my word for it that this would not be a good thing - I've seen myself naked and can only admire my wifes fortitude.

            The *increase* in Labour membership since the election is bigger than the total Tory membership.

            I'll not fact check that and just accept it. How many do you think are signing up to vote for Corbyn because they know the only election he could ever win would be to labour leader? I genuinely know three people at work (investment banking) who signed up on this basis to vote for Corbyn, despite never having cast a red vote their whole family line.

            Swing voters vote. Non-voters don't. As simple as that sounds, you're overlooking its significance. For everyone that doesn't vote who decides they'll vote for Corbyn, you'll lose 2 or 3 voters like me, making 2020 a coming collapse.

            UKIPs main raison d'etre will be decided before then. Farrage is, like him or loathe him, also a conviction politician. UKIP might well embark on a new direction, possibly under a new name, and leave labour sitting in the ... liberal seats (for want of a better name). Funding and membership would collapse, and the unions would haul them so far left they'd be a protest vote for angry students and unreconstructed communists.

            The primary goal of an effective opposition are to look like a government in waiting at all times. Corbyn is not PM material. Labour look like a tired & confused shambles, with only pipe dreams for comfort, no real ideas. Opposition is a time for learning from past mistakes, yet none has been done. It is a time for unity, yet there is none. It is a time to refresh your party, yet they do not refresh it - Diane Abbot, Harriet Harman, Blears, Johnston, Yvette Cooper-Balls, Burnham, and so many more besides need to be deselected and put out to pasture.

            Britain deserves an effective government, and that requires an effective opposition. Labour are not that. They will not be that under Corbyn. Only Kendall can hold them together long enough for a leader to emerge, for there are none there now. A situation, I may add, that afflicts the Conservatives alike, but to a lesser degree.

          2. DavCrav

            Re: swing voters

            "Swing voters like yourself are now vastly outnumbered by people who have either never voted, or who have recently stopped voting, in either case "because there's no one worthing [sic] voting for because they're all the same"."

            Whereas statistics say that turnout this year was the highest for 18 years, at 66%. In 2005 when turnout was 61%, or in 2001 where it was 59%, you would have had more of an argument. But, around a third of the electorate were officially undecided in this election, making it the highest number for years as well.

            Luvvie, self-aggrandizing moment: I appeared on BBC News shortly before the election to make exactly this point.

        2. strum

          Re: As for the other candidates 'clubbing together'

          >He simply isn't electable to the public.

          That's what they said about Syriza.

          1. DavCrav

            Re: As for the other candidates 'clubbing together'

            ">He simply isn't electable to the public.

            That's what they said about Syriza."

            That turned out well.

  6. Kubla Cant Silver badge

    Actually, it's not true that left-wing socialism leads to economic ruin. The Tube drivers are all members of a left-wing union, and they're pretty well-off. If we all joined the RMT then poverty would be eliminated at a stroke.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "If we all joined the RMT then poverty would be eliminated at a stroke"

      Except of course for those that require tube tickets...

      The faster the Tube Drivers are replaced with computers like on the DLR, the better.

      £50K and double normal holiday allowances just for a low skilled job of pressing a button?!

  7. codejunky Silver badge

    Ha

    Corbyn seems to be a very popular politician to a lot of people on the left and the right. The left seem to want him for the romanticised dream of an extreme left labour long passed. The right seem to want him so they will not be electorally challenged.

    Interesting times.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ha

      I thought he'd be great at first, but now I'm worried that he might accidentally get in to power.

      I mean, I would look forward to the tories winning a few more terms, but imagine if he managed to get in!

    2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: Ha

      Mr Corbyn reminds me of many of the 'Left' I encountered when I was a student in the mid 1970's.

      There were

      Broad Left

      SWP

      CPGB

      Marxists

      Maoists

      Trotskists

      and a few groups even they despised.

      The (slighly) different Utopias they wanted are not that different from his agenda.

      Strange how the world turns full circle isn't it.

      1. Chris Miller

        Re: Ha

        Ah, but was it the CPGB or the CPGB(M-L)? Splitters!

      2. graeme leggett

        Re: Ha

        It started as reading as a tribute to Davids Nobbs but you missed out " neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders..." Among others.

  8. DavidJB

    I wonder how many of the new 'Labour' (not to be confused with 'New Labour') voters are Putinbots? I got a bit of a wakeup call when I was visiting some vaguely lefty friends and found they were watching a lot of Russia Today TV (prop.: V. Putin), on the grounds that it gave an 'unbiased' view of world events.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Coat

      Russia Today

      The other side of the Fox News coin?

      Mines the one with the 27th Dec 1989 issue of Pravda in the pocket. It has one line mentioning the overthrow of Ceaușescu.

      {bought at a junk shop in Vladivostok in 1994}

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "they were watching a lot of Russia Today TV (prop.: V. Putin), on the grounds that it gave an 'unbiased' view of world events."

      Presumably the same sort of "unbiased" as Fox News - except perhaps not quite as politically influenced!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Russia Today

      "they were watching a lot of Russia Today TV (prop.: V. Putin), on the grounds that it gave an 'unbiased' view of world events."

      Whereas, for example, MurdochVision (formerly BBC) gives you an entirely unbiased view.

      I would hope that if you'd listened carefully, the students were saying that RT gives you a *different* view, with *different* biases.

      There's been a bank chairperson on the BBC board or BBC Trust for a very very long time. Until recently it was yer chairman from Barclays, Marcus Agius. No possible conflict of interest there. His financial sector replacement from another entirely respectababble City institution is Rona Fairhead who was paid £500K+ for her part time role as HSBC non-exec, and is now Chair of the BBC Trust. No potential for bias or conflict of interest there.

    4. graeme leggett

      But Mr Corbyn hasn't actually saluted the "indefatigability" of the Russian leader has he?

      I do hope your friends meant "different perspective" rather than unbiased.

      1. DavCrav

        "I do hope your friends meant "different perspective" rather than unbiased."

        A different perspective is one thing. But if all the perspective has going for it is that it's "different", then that's not really great.

        It's rather like people in the United States who defend their opinions by citing the First Amendment. I cannot remember who said this, but he said "if the only thing going for your argument is that it is literally not illegal to speak it, then it isn't a good argument".

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Whereas, for example, MurdochVision (formerly BBC)"

    Sky TV is in no way "formerly the BBC".

    If the 'conflict of interest' you allude to had achieved anything that would likely be a good thing as the BBC is well known to have a left wing leaning whereas a competent financier that presumably understands economics would usually be a Conservative voter.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sky TV is in no way "formerly the BBC".

      Wrong way round. Once the Tories have finished with the BBC it'll likely be owned by one of the Murdoch dynasty.

      "the BBC is well known to have a left wing leaning"

      That might have been the case in the days when the BBC made stuff like Cathy Come Home or Boys from the Blackstuff, and when they made documentaries (other than nature documentaries) that were actually worth watching. I believe at one point they even had that Trotskyite economist JKGalbraith (senior) do a series. That was all a very very very long time ago.

      Its recent financial and political correspondents/editors/presenters are in no way left wing.

      During the reign of Marcus Agius on the BBC board, Barclays were often in the news, often not in a good way (e.g. tax dodging scandals reported in some depth in all the mainstream papers including the Telegraph and even the Sun). Not a word on the BBC. Odd that.

      1. Roj Blake

        Re: Sky TV is in no way "formerly the BBC".

        How can the BBC be considered left-wing when its main political pundit is a former national chair of the Young Conservatives and its main political presenter is a former Bullingdon boy?

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Sky TV is in no way "formerly the BBC".

          @ Roj Blake

          "How can the BBC be considered left-wing when its main political pundit is a former national chair of the Young Conservatives and its main political presenter is a former Bullingdon boy?"

          By judging it on action, not the history of a single person.

        2. TheVogon

          Re: Sky TV is in no way "formerly the BBC".

          "How can the BBC be considered left-wing when"

          You must have missed their coverage of the last general election for instance.

        3. DocJames
          IT Angle

          Re: Sky TV is in no way "formerly the BBC".

          How can the BBC be considered left-wing when its main political pundit is a former national chair of the Young Conservatives and its main political presenter is a former Bullingdon boy?

          By listening to the rest of the British media, purveyors of opinions of right wing billionaires masquerading as public opinion.

          It is of course difficult to tell what public opinion is, given people's propensity for agreeing with what is popular and permanently being told that [insert relevant extremist right wing cant here] is popular. And for anyone taking exception to my use of extremist, listening to the talk emerging from Britain about refugees is pretty scary. It does put paid to any Whiggish belief in inevitable progress.

  10. LucreLout
    Pint

    I'd like to know..

    ...how Corbyn plans to finance any of his nationalisations. The country, courtesy of his party, is bust. It will be bust for a generation. "Sorry. There is no money left" said Labour, and it is possibly the one fiscal concept they got right.

    So how does he pay for the shares in utilities and transportation that he seeks to nationalise?

    He can't steal the money from private pensions because that would obliterate the stock market and the economy right after it.

    He can't nationalise bank deposits, because that would also destroy the economy (even a partial theft would cause unstoppable bank runs).

    He can't raid big business, because they'll just decamp for fairer climes, leaving small busineses to pick up the tab, sending many to the wall and spiking unemployment.

    He can't raise direct taxes, because tax payers are already at breaking point. The well is dry. A good whack of the higher rate payers are IT staff in London, and more and more of us are giving it up and going contracting, while the jobs go to cheaper locations or offshore.

    He can't just print the money, because that would spike interest rates through the roof in order to stop the pound dropping through the floor. I know this is what he's currently suggesting, but he'd find out in short order that its not an option.

    And he absolutely can't borrow any more - Gordon already borrowed and spent every pound there was to have.

    On the face of it, it seems to be the Magic Money Tree all over again. So, Corbyn supporters, can you explain how he's actually going to pay for any of these bills? I've given it a lot of thought and I can't see how it can be financed.

    Virtual pint because I come in peace....

    1. Tom Wood

      Re: I'd like to know..

      Well the railways is fairly easy. The state still owns most of the infrastructure and rents it out to the privatised operators. You just let their contracts expire and don't renew them, or if you want to get more creative find ways to terminate them early. (As the franchises start falling back into state hands, the state then gets to keep the profit from them, which can be reinvested or used to buy up the remaining contracts).

      And, of course he could borrow more. Brown didn't "borrow and spend every pound there was to have", as evidenced by the fact that Osborne has borrowed more than Brown did: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

      1. LucreLout

        Re: I'd like to know..

        Well the railways is fairly easy

        Its easy only if you forget all about BR.

        BR was a disaster, chiefly because one uppity union rep could shut down the whole network. The only way the state can run the trains is if they lock out the unions, or bar them from striking. That won't sit well with the left.

        And, of course he could borrow more.... evidenced by the fact that Osborne has borrowed more than Brown

        Only because brown borrowed during the boom to hire a million more public sector staff than we need. The recession brought an end to that game. The current borrowing is short term while the economy is rebalanced away from the public sector to the private sector. You can't do that with nationalisations, and the bond markets would nuke you from orbit for trying.

        The only reason the current debt and deficit levels are tollerated is because the deficit is being reduced and the debt will follow right after it. Try asking to borrow hundreds of billions to nationalise the power companies and the base rate will soar to protect the pound against lira like levels of FX.

        You can't get out of debt by borrowing more money to spend on wages. Infrastructure maybe, but never wages. You can't public sector your way to wealth because the public sector consumes wealth generated by the private sector. It cannot be otherwise.

        1. Tom Wood

          Re: I'd like to know..

          Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy... all have state owned railways. Hell, their state owned railway companies even own a good chunk of our supposedly private railway companies. What is it about these countries that means they can run successful state-owned railway companies but we can't?

          1. LucreLout

            Re: I'd like to know..

            What is it about these countries that means they can run successful state-owned railway companies but we can't?

            Progressive unions that don't strike, and an understanding amongst their employees that the reason the train set exists is to provide the public with transport NOT the worker with an income and lifestyle far beyond what they're worth?

            British unions strike at the drop of a hat - it's how they open negotiations, and its where the European term "The British Disease" comes from. Even the French used to laugh at how many strikes our unions called. The French. Just let that sink in for a moment.

            Tube drivers push a button to open and close doors. That's basically all they do. And that's £50k+ for a 30 hour week with nearly three months holiday. It's not sustainable, is it? Salaries in the real world get paid at replacement level and no higher. Why should commuters pay double pay just to get to work?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I'd like to know..

          "Only because brown borrowed during the boom to hire a million more public sector staff than we need."

          Mostly in Labour areas of course.

          1. paulf
            Megaphone

            Re: I'd like to know..

            Lots of rail points here:

            "how Corbyn plans to finance any of his nationalisations"

            It doesn't have to be cash raised in the normal manner. He could issue Government debt to buy up the private assets in question. This is how the big four railway companies were nationalised in 1948, their shares were exchanged for Government bonds. The risk, as another commentard said, is that the bond markets would [potentially] nuke him from orbit.

            Note that issuing debt like this is covering the "defect" between Govt revenue and spending.

            "BR was a disaster, chiefly because one uppity union rep could shut down the whole network."

            Taking that one point - the messy structure introduced by the 1993 railways act was in part to smash the power of the unions. The upshot was the unions adapted and became very effective at playing one TOC off against another. Perhaps not good at closing the whole network, but good at getting pay improvements.

            "[Other european contries have...] Progressive unions that don't strike"

            I'll leave this here with no further comment

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/20/train-driver-strike-paralyses-germany-rail-network

            "Ninth walkout in 10 months leaves millions stranded as sympathy for workers involved in industrial action nosedives "

            "Tube drivers push a button to open and close doors."

            On the Victoria line yes, as it uses Automatic Train Operation. On other lines, this is not true and the driver actually drives as well as operate the doors, etc. Note also that trains need some kind of track side competent operator on board. DLR tunnels were built to modern standards with evacuation walkways but the original tube lines are barely big enough for the train so evacuation is through the train onto the track.

            Note also that it's shift work with incredibly unsociable hours and carries a lot of responsibility not to mention route knowledge. I'm not necessarily saying they're right to strike but it's much more than just pushing a button.

            "I read somewhere he would fund it by printing money and calling it "QE for infrastructure" or something stupid like that."

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33884836

            "the rolling stock is not so easy."

            The original BR rolling stock was split up into three ROSCOs (Angel, Porterbrook, and Eversholt) and sold off. This hasn't generated the competition hoped for. Car leasing is easy, you're buying a commodity product with a 10 year life. Once the initial 3 year lease is up you know there is a market to sell the vehicle into. Rail vehicles are bespoke modifications of a specialised product, aimed at a particular line, with a 40+ year life span. Why would you invest in new rolling stock unless you were certain of it being used, thus making your return over that 40 year life? Even in BR days leasing wasn't allowed unless it was at least as cheap as buying. Buying back the ROSCO stock would be difficult and/or costly.

            "What's the situation with the freight train operators"

            They are not franchised nor subsidised, providing you don't include implicit subsidy from the occasional building of new chord/link lines for freight operation. These often free capacity for passenger services so it isn't exclusively for the benefit of Freight operators.

      2. graeme leggett

        Re: I'd like to know..

        the rolling stock is not so easy. That at the moment is owned by franchisees (TOCs) or companies that lease stock to franchisees. It would take while to bring that into public ownership if desired.

        What's the situation with the freight train operators. Are they vampires feasting on the public purse, or just quietly getting by with little/no subsidy?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'd like to know..

        "Osborne has borrowed more than Brown did"

        Because he inherited a massive on-going deficit thanks to Labour and you can't just turn off the money tap in government - it unfortunately takes a while to reverse the waste and profligacy of 3 Labour governments.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'd like to know..

      I read somewhere he would fund it by printing money and calling it "QE for infrastructure" or something stupid like that.

      I don't know if it's true or not, I cant't remember the source, but if it is, he's a lot more dangerous than I thought he was.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022