Angela Eagle launched her candidacy for the Labour Party leadership today. She published this statement.
I would love to say I can find a policy commitment in it, but I can't. I can find a reference to her mum and dad. And some nice sounding sentiments. But as far as I can see there is nothing at all that says why she is standing. And I am really sorry to note that.
In contrast Theresa May spoke today. She did not know at the time that she would be PM by the middle of the week.
She spoke about industrial policy.
She wanted workers on boards.
And new government bonds to fund infrastructure.
And fair tax.
And new housing, presumably to be paid for with those bonds.
Of course it may be all a sham.
And it could also be true. As someone said to me, she could have lifted some of it from this blog.
All I am saying though is that if this was the start of a general election campaign - and it could be - Angela Eagle will have to improve her game whatever role she has to play.
What she has not done is show she is an alternative to Jeremy Corbyn.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I don’t think Eagle’s challenge will have time to run. The Tories will want to run against Corbyn while Labour is in disarray. May will call a snap election within days.
I would if I was her
I’m less sure about the chances of snap election. Why risk losing a majority which will keep you in office for 4 years, when all you have to gain is 1 extra year? On the other hand, in the present situation, May might hope for a much bigger majority, and to inflict lasting damage on Labour.
If there is a snap election , what Labour *should* do is to call a truce on their internal wranglings, and form a temporary electoral pact with the LibDems, SNP, Plaid, and Greens, for the purpose of introducing PR and then calling a fresh election ASAP. That would mean:
1) In this 1 election, where a sitting MP from any party in the pact wants to stand again, they will be unopposed by the other pact parties – and not deselected by their own party.
2) In other seats, a single pact candidate will be selected in an open primary – i.e. open to all voters in the constituency, from any or no party.
Once PR is introduced, there would be no more pre-election pacts. And Labour would be free to split before the first election under PR, assuming it still wants to.
This is a lot to ask, but what are the practical alternatives?
I have, of course, called for that coalition on this blog
The extra problem is whether it’s possible to put together a centre-left coalition quickly enough for an early election.
Though the Opposition may have some ability to influence the timing of an election, now that the PM cannot simply ask the Queen for a dissolution. They might reasonably say that they will oppose a dissolution (which requires a 2/3 vote in the Commons) until all parties have had a chance to put together a Brexit plan, so that the voters have something to choose between. It would be undemocratic to oppose an early dissolution altogether, but it is fair to argue about the exact timing.
The PM could alternatively bring forward a bill to dissolve Parliament (which would only require a simple majority, but in both Houses). So there are various ways this could go.
Why would the SNP support PR. At the moment they gain massively from the current FPTP system.
They won’t forever
Well, the SNP do support PR for Westminster, even if it’s not in their self-interest. E.g. see Tommy Shepherd (MP)’s contribution at this event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMHuysv5a4E
And in the longer term, they want to be out of the UK (and I expect, will be), so it’s moot.
It would only gain her an extra year. Why bother?
A big majority
I have my doubts she would risk a general election with the threat of the right wing brexit voters moving to ukip in even larger numbers until she has concluded the negotiations and put brexit to bed. But who knows it’s been a strange two weeks!
Overall I doubt it
The Guardian’s analysis:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jul/11/andrea-leadsom-apologises-to-theresa-may-politics-live?page=with:block-5783a105e4b0ea445f0fe2bf#block-5783a105e4b0ea445f0fe2bf
highlights the extent of the clothes-stealing in Theresa May’s speech. She has set out some very specific policy departures – most of which are very welcome. If there was ever a need for an effective opposition in parliament to hold her to account, it is now. The contrast is not between Theresa May and Angela Eagle; it is between the Tory party and the Labour party. The former has displayed its efficient and ruthless lust for power; the latter is being torn to shreds about the relative powers of its members and its parliamentary representatives.
The ultimate irony is that Theresa May has a better than sporting chance of implementing these policies, but that if they were proposed by a Labour party leader they would be savaged by most of the mainstream media.
The last is very telling
I wonder to what extent this seeming Tory shift to the left is a result of Corbyn’s leadership and to what extent his leadership is a symptom of a wider political shift to the left.
Could it be that the Labour party is dragging the Tories left, in a mirror of the circumstances that dragged Labour right in the nineties? Whether that is by their advocacy of more left-wing policies or merely by their abandonment of the space to the left of the Tories. It would be ironic if in our age of focus groups and triangulation it was the party in opposition that was really the one dictating the direction of travel.
Or is it just that a cultural shift left is occurring and Labour are in opposition because they are ahead of the curve while the Tories are shifting left to retain their position on the bow wave?
Of course there could be no real shift left and this is just spin and the march right will continue under Theresa May.
I think it would be most unwise to think the right is diminished
They won Brexit after all
Richard,
As you well know, the Brexit was not purely the reserve of the ‘the right’ and a cold and objective analysis would suggest that the neo-liberalism has now, in several decisive shifts, been seriously diminished at the political level. If your version of ‘the right’ is a reference to the confused nationalism/racism mix then it may best to remember that it, too is a partly an anti-corporate anti-globalisation response. The Right is not that easily characterised.
I think that Alberto has basically got it right. The political and economic centre has now shifted decisively to the left.
I was too simplistic: I agree
But it is indisputable that the Right ran the Brexit campaign, I think
It is also true that their reward appears toi be scant now it has been done
Let’s see
That’s the beauty of it. The media can’t savage everyone. May is smart, she has not only read the winds of change well but she has neutralised her Tory rivals and partially disarmed her opposition by moving closer to them.
There are frequent mentions of “the Overton Window” in the forums of this blog. I think it has just shifted – substantially.
Angela is just running as interference to Corbyn.
She has no chance of winning, but that is not the point.
The point is to hamper any development of the labour party as an effective party of opposition to the neoliberal status quo. That is far more important to the malignants that infest and control the PLP.
Angela does not owe her career to any of that democratic nonsense
I know many who work in the PLP – some on both sides of the divide
I think your comment wholly inappropriate
Yes there are neoliberals and I have said so often
But not all who want a new leader
That said I have made clear Angela would not be my choice
Where did I say all? I am sure there are some of good intent, but far too many are clearly not.
Can you ask these people what they hope to achieve? If it’s helping out the blue tories, it would make sense.
It is absolutely risible that theresa may can outflank the labour party from the left while they have spent the last six years quaking at the very thought.
Of course it’s just flannel, but maybe a tory leader might actually do what they say for once in my life.
I won’t be rushing to the bookies over that.
How telling that a candidate to replace JC has not a word to say about policies. That says it all really.
The only inference to be drawn is that the opposition to JC in the PLP has no policies, other than to carry on as before. What a pathetic spectacle!
I am sure she is not the personification of the whole of the rest of the PLP
I know she is not
Absolutely. It would be silly notto. She is very electable, at this stage of the game and she’s saying all the right things. Savvy lady.
Mrs May says in the speech you link to: “We must leave the European Union…” That is an unambiguous commitment. If she calls an election before signing Article 50 then she creates a second referendum, in which she has nailed her colours to the Brexit mast. Labour possibly, the SNP probably, and the Liberals certainly, would say: vote for us and there’ll be no signing of Art. 50. I cannot see her doing that.
Eagle v May? Politically it’s no contest. I’ve just watched her interview with Andrew Neil http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/11/simple-question-andrew-neil-leaves-labour-coups-angela-eagle-floundering. The fact that she is even putting herself forward will set the the recovery of the LP further back in the public’s eyes. Like it or not, any party leader must project some reassuring ‘warmth'(not sure that’s the right word) when speaking publicly. A little ‘charisma’ or ‘chutzpah’ would be a blessing. The messenger gives credibility to the message. I don’t doubt her sincerity, but Angela Eagle is a dreadful public speaker. By contrast May projects self-confidence and her extensive experience in a firm but benign sort of way. Of course, that’s dangerous because she is far from benign and has a terrible track-record on social issues. But, hey, that’s the media-driven age we live in. Maybe I’m slowly moving in the direction that JC could, perhaps, pull it off by becoming more like Bernie Sanders, who is adored by the younger voters. It’s all very confusing, isn’t it? Caroline Lucas would be a good match for Theresa May. Over and out!
I almost can’t believe I’m saying this, Richard, but if you removed the words ‘Conservative Party’ and ‘Conservative’ from May’s speech it would be pretty ground breaking to hear it come from a Labour politician – and that includes Corbyn. To think that May has been in the fight for leadership of the Tory party for a matter of weeks and Corbyn and co have led (sic) the Labour Party for approaching a year and she can produce this. No contest I’m afraid.
There’s much missing of course, and whether or not any of it ever gets further formulated and implemented is another matter, but just as a statement of policy intent it is admirable. That’s something I never thought I’d say about anything Tory, but credit where credit’s due.
Agree, an early election most certainly. November – or perhaps October is doable?
November, I think
I am going to be embarrassed if another of my ideas is taken by the right
The General Anti-Abuse Rule was
As was country-by-country reporting
Hmmm… there’s a quandary. If the ideas are adopted in more than sham form does it matter what colour the ties of those who implement them are?
No
‘does it matter what colour the ties of those who implement them are?’
Then if its not in sham form the colour of those ties have changed. You can’t remain the same colour and introduce policies that are not of that colour.
PQE could be used by a party of any colour
What it was used for would differ – and make a big difference in the long run and influence my preference, of course
But of course it could be used by the Conservatives
Saying otherwise is to suggest income tax could only be used by one party and is obviously wrong
Well British politics is in hyper-drive at the moment. Read Richard’s analysis a few weeks ago and he convinced me that May would be the next PM. Bet even he didn’t realise it would happen so quickly.
Ken Clarke said a week ago that he had no idea what she stood for outside the Home Office.
I was worried that the Tory party would drift much further to the Right, have been depressed since Jo Cox’s murder.
This is a great set of policies from May; I do hope she means it. It at least has a ring of truth unlike Margaret Thatcher’s use of the prayer of St Francis when he entered Downing St. Hope comes from unexpected quarters!
I can’t help but think Labour will be decimated if there is a snap general election with UKIP and the Tory party making huge inroads on the Labour held seats.
Eagle is very disappointing. I agree with Richard JC has been hopeless as a leader but there is no obvious other candidate.
I still vaguely hope Owen Smith might join in
But that’s the end of my hope
Eagle’s kick off today was so badly done timing wise that I even felt sorry for her and that is saying something.
Who is running things in Labour? No one can blame Corbyn for this one.
Her interview on Channel 4 where she said it was about time Labour had a female leader was embarrassing.
I hope that Owen Smith has a go although I know nothing of him. Maybe his supporters might actually stage manage the whole thing more effectively and make him look more credible.
Eagle looked like someone who was making a clumsy grab at something.
As for May, I do hope that she is being sincere. But let’s not forget that there are some really nasty elements in the Tory party who she has to deal with.
Does anyone know how Letwin and Maude will fair under her leadership?
Osbourne is apparently meeting the Americans soon – I did mention that this could be a possibility before the vote. The reduction in corporation tax will be attractive to them.
I look forward to him going but I am also very apprehensive about who will replace him.
Angela was desperately disappointing. Her pitch wasnt just light on ideas: they were completely absent. Its difficult to see how a candidate is going to command much credibility by virtue of a) being a Northern woman and b) not being JC.
Come on Angela. If you’re serious you’re going to have to do an awful lot better.
The last 30 years has seen a developing consensus of right wing economics and liberal social policy, May may she some reversal of this trend if her words are backed up by actions
I am open minded and ready to be convinced by Angela Eagle, but having read her announcements and interviews today I don’t see anything convincing. I wasn’t really expecting policy as it seems she is presenting herself as different from Corbyn on “leadership” rather than on policy but she hasn’t said anything about what that means, other than that she is a “good woman” who can bring the party together. I was ready to perhaps hear how she would work differently with her front bench, be more accessible and organised or something like that, but no.
I am not open minded about Owen Smith, having heard some unpleasant stories about him from Welsh politics insiders whom I know and trust. So right now I am still likely to support Corbyn, unless Eagle makes a better show of it very soon.
“As someone said to me, she could have lifted some of it from this blog.”
Which proves that the course of justice does not necessarily need to be aligned with electoral success.
Keep up the good work Richard.
Why is no-one pointing out the breath-taking hypocrisy and opportunism of May who has not raised her voice against the cruel and vicious policies SHE supported for the past six years?
I’m glad she’s changeling tack but the unprincipled , weather- vane opportunism needs to be pointed out. This ‘person’ did not air any concerns during here ministerial role of the savage impact of the bedroom tax/sanctions/ disability cuts. And now, when it suits here, she dons the veil of enlightenment. She could have resigned like IDS did if she found the policies so appalling-but that didn’t happen; she could have said and done something-she didn’t and that affected lives. So how can she be trusted?
The infinite shysterdom of these people always exceeds what one would naturally expect, they NEVER disappoint.
Mrs May has the gravitas. Like Angela Eagle, but don’t think she will hack it against May, sorry to say.
Sylvia -I think you might be being swayed by that tall , somewhat feline cache of class and the ‘rector’s wife’ image, a rather classic English, snooty, shires and southern counties look.
it is worth questioning whether gravitas is ditching some of the cruel policies you have supported for years to espouse better ones at a propitious moment for you!
No one is becoming a Tory overnight I am sure
But when Labour is reduced to sending public lawyers letters to each other then how on earth can anyone think it has a hope of forming a government? In that case scrutiny of what the government is doing is the only available option
Although personally I am pleased to see that politicians and their political parties are still not above the rule of law (and the law of their own rules). The leadership election process must be clean and transparent, and if that requires lawyers to try to ensure it is then so be it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/12/legal-letter-to-nec-chief-over-labour-leadership-rules
Oh no, not taken in so lightly. Have lived too long and worked with every class under the sun. Mrs May has a calmness,that is not pious, not those treacly tones of Mrs T. I don’t think all Tories are cruel, they are misguided. I have enough of them to cope with in my family. Nothing is black and white. My colours are firmly nailed to the side of energetic, dynamic, caring without being a pushover type of ideal. We all have our definition of what is fair. This blog is fantastic and Richard gives us a fair bit of leeway to express ourselves which creates such a lively, adult debating place. Regards, Sylvia.
Slightly interesting how some of the things May talked about are probably only possible outside the EU, such as blocking takeovers of British companies. And interesting more generally that a lot of what May talked about was about reasserting sovereignty over economic forces.
Is it just me or did Angela Eagle’s launch seem to be a little bit too uncommitted? I actually wonder if its genuine or a part of some manoeuvre that precedes and tries to stymie (or reinforce) someone else’s bid.
Politicians do that sometimes. You know when you see leadership candidates that never stood a chance, you wonder they bother, then they withdraw suddenly and disruptively or announce their withdrawal with a big endorsement for some other candidate? I don’t know, just wondering.
It does feel like a stalking horse bid
As a socialist of 52 years standing it pains me to say that a Conservative is better at anything but on performance that has to be the conclusion I draw. At this point I would normally make a reference to substance but Angela Eagle has offered none. Theresa May said “…under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself – completely, absolutely, unequivocally – at the service of working people.” It would be possible for this statement to be true and still oppress the young, sick, retired and unemployed so there’s wriggle room aplenty.
Without any indication of policy intent one is led to consider voting records. May has behaved impeccably (for a tory) and showed no sign of dissent as austerity measures were delivered, not even an ‘unavoidable absence’ from the chamber when a vote is called. There is nothing in her rhetoric to indicate that the leopard has changed its spots.
On the 13th of June the Telegraph published the script the Labour dissenters were going to follow. Ms Eagle appears to have stuck to it. She now wishes to repair that which she conspired to break. Her voting record was FOR the Iraq war, the million people parading on London’s streets did not give her pause for thought. Perhaps she was, like many, misled. If so I would ask why she voted AGAINST an inquiry into the war when hindsight might have indicated something had gone dreadfully wrong. “I am not a Blairite, I am not a Brownite” she says but judging on her voting record I beg to differ. I also think that when it suits she will ignore the wider electorate she now says are dictating her actions.
I contemplate the next election, whenever it is, with something approaching dismay. I was once a democrat but I am finding it more and more difficult to dispute Prof. Crouch’s hypothesis that we have already entered a post-democratic era where politicians supply a faux veneer of validity to non-democratic governance (The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism, Polity).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/labour-rebels-hope-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/
You express the depressed mood of many
Brexit will keep the Tory right wing appeased for a while.
In the meantime they have to reverse some of the pain they have inflicted to regain confidence and votes of the public.
The harder the left fights for justice, the more the Tories will have to deliver to retain their standing. So we must fight on!
I have to admit, I was almost astonished when I read some of May’s stated policy aims. If May is being genuine, I can’t imagine the wealthy backers of her party will be too happy if she was to attempt to implement many of these policies so I would tend to doubt that she’ll have the wherewithal to get any of them through parliament. I suppose it might feasibly end up with the odd situation that she was relying on votes from Labour MPs as a large chunk of her own party recoiled from some of the policies!
Nah – can’t believe she’ll survive too long if it seems she is going to have some success in passing anything in the area of social justice. Let’s hope she lasts long enough to reverse Osborne’s dimmest policies!
The scope for surprise is now quite enormous
Let’s see what happens
The opportunities of a pragmatic Keynesian prime minister/Chancellor are endless (whether from the left or centre right) – to deliver prosperity, electoral success and also a new consensus.
For Labour and the left it doesn’t really matter if her aims are all talk and no walk because what she has effectively done is shift the political centre by giving validity and the unexpected Conservative seal of approval to those policy aims.
That which was controversial is now accepted and bi-partisan, whether she implements it – or someone else does!
If anything, it now gives the opposition a new role in holding her to those those stated aims and aspirations.
I suspect , as said above that this is about stealing whatever thunder Labour COULD have had if they had been together nought to get those policies out earlier.
If the relationship between Corbyn and the PLP had been workable they would have got these policy documents out months ago and May would not have been able to opportunistically produce this ‘magic card.’ But we’ve hear it before form the ghastly amateur Cameron, all that stuff about ‘broad shoulders.’
As also mentioned above, the policy of marginalising those on benefits will undoubtedly continue with constant and pointless embarrassment from Job Centres, and there is no mention of scrapping the pointless Bedroom Tax which was designed to create tension around housing and not give people the real explanation.
My has picked up the Overton Window shift , so something will have to be implemented even if it is a milksop. One Positive thing might be that those on disability benefits might, just might, after 6 years of unrelieved anxiety, be able to relax and get on with their lives.
I agree with Richard, that at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter which Party implements useful a policies that create a better society. But WHAT DOES matter is holding them to account for implementing cruel ones without raising a voice until the Overton Window forces them -for that their should be some hauling over the coals.
Labour is completely buggered now: split, no policies and some of the ones they might have had stolen from them.
John McDonnell did not commit to PQE – and never did. Jeremy has but John has not
John wanted to sign a balanced budget charter last September and had to be persuaded not to
He has offered a very tepid fiscal policy
It is not the PLP who made him do that
I have no idea who did: it was not anyone advising him
Looks like failure across the board and maybe the final blow of the ‘hope of a real Left.’ More neolibneralism from the ‘Extreme Centre’ (as Tariq Ali puts it).
It will be crumbs from the neo-liberal table though.
Anyone thinking that Owen Smith might be a better candidate might want to read this.
http://news.crocels.com/news/8412/owen-smith-labour-nhs-private-sector-involvement/
I have
I worked for KPMG once
I changed my mind
Have you asked him if he has?
Or do you live in an immutable universe where nothing ever changes?
“Prior to standing for election Owen Smith worked as a lobbyist for drugs firm Pfizer. During that time, Owen Smith called for more involvement of such private firms in the NHS. “We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda,” he said on behalf of the firm.
In 2006 when there was a motion in Parliament calling for Pfizer to have less of a stranglehold on the NHS, Owen Smith said: “We believe (the early day motion) to be based on inaccurate information provided by wholesalers that we have not chosen to partner with.”
Doesn’t look spiffing -but, as you say, Richard, a Damascene conversion on the lines of Weather-Vane May might well be happening as I type!
You mean you have nothing embarrassing in your past?
Wow
I don’t remember saying that, nor does it require me to have no embarrassing things in my past to make such an observation.
I would be the first to admit that my past has many embarrassing moments and my present does s well;BUT in the case of Smith we are talking about a record in politics that is fairly recent and that impacts the lives of millions.
We have no evidence of any change of direction and evidence of neo-liberal opportunism at the very least.
My personal cock-up have cause some problems for people close to me but not on a national scale. The shot-termism and Overton Window Wiggle of politicians HAS such a national effect. And I have every right to point that out and will continue to do so.
So there, with knobs on! (Smiley emoticon)
Smily maybe
But might you comment less please: I have not got time to read the opinion as many times as you are offering it?
I think it is entirely possible for him to have changed his mind, but in light of the overall shift from left to right in the party and the fact that he is opposition to JC and has not put out any policies or agenda other than removing a democratically elected leader it appears unlikely. Why leave a job with excellent remuneration to go into a political party that has never in the past wanted to sell contracts to private companies. Pfizer endorsed and encouraged him in this, which kind of makes you wonder why.
The opportunity to ask him about his past beliefs has not presented itself to me yet, but be sure I will when it does.
When you worked for KPMG Richard were you a permanent member of staff or did you work a short term contract?
As I said, people can change their mind but cynicism makes me wonder why.
I have spoken with Owen many times
The idea that Pfizer put him up to this is ludicrous
I was on a per ant KPMG contract
No problem, Richard.
I don’t hold the things he said as a Pfizer employee against him. However there is also https://twitter.com/mikeparkerwales/status/752562902842937344 and https://medium.com/@TenPercent/message-to-disabled-people-regarding-owen-smith-mps-leadership-bid-2de1eda0fd8d#.4ws99wrma — this is the sort of thing which cumulatively makes me distrust him. If I saw some counterexamples from him for balance I would take those things into account but so far I have not.
I think what people need to learn from this is that it is up to them to force open the Overton Window. We are clearly dealing with feckless shyster politicians who will only change tack IF they sense enough pissed -offness out there. May could smell the fecal matter approaching the fan and her nostrils wrinkled a bit.
This , of course, famously happened after the poll tax riots, where the change of direction on that issue was immediate.
Remember the Tories introducing policies to scapegoat and marginalise the unemployed and ill and those in socila housing? The did this by stealth, dipping their toes in the water, dropping the odd phrase here and their (those that don’t get up….) When they realised that there was no significant response, they ran with it and caused massive and arbitrary suffering.
So it is up to people to become more vocal and to hold these weather vane shysters to account. They will change direction if the response is BIG enough, otherwise they will trample and piss on anyone they can, we’ve seen it.
We can’t wait for referenda to do it -get vocal, is the answer!
Why are so many still suggesting the tories could call a snap election? They do not have 2/3 of MPs so it’s not possible.
Labour has called for one too
Which more or less means that they know it won’t happen. All things considered.
Re Owen Smith He doesn’t sound a suitable candidate to appeal to Corbynistas
http://kgmcgrath.tumblr.com/post/146771654426/the-corbyn-crisis
A couple of years ago I was part of a small delegation that approached Mr Smith with a view to enlisting his support in a campaign to save our local library in Rhydyfelin. Despite swingeing local authority cuts, the Library had not originally been earmarked for closure, mainly as a result of an Equality Impact Assessment that the Council was legally bound to carry out (the Library was serving a disadvantaged, Communities First area with terrible school results, etc) but, at the last moment, the library was switched to the council’s intended closure list (50% of Rhondda Cynon Taf’s libraries subsequently closed). Despite the clear evidence of a breach in its own legal requirement to take note of the EIA (the decision was indeed later rescinded by the council under threat of a judicial review and following a wonderful community campaign which involved octogenarian borrowers chaining themselves to the bookshelves on the day of its closure) and the clear moral argument to provide a Library for the poorest residents in his constituency Mr Smith was not at all keen to lend his weight to our campaign.
As we were leaving his office, I made a final attempt for him to look to his conscience. Emphasising, again, the poverty-stricken nature of the neighbourhood, the low percentage of homes with internet access and private transport (which made our local library such a lifeline to opportunity in the outside world) and his position as a Labour M.P duty-bound, one would have thought, to assist those desperately struggling under a savage Tory austerity programme. It was all to no avail, though, ‘need doesn’t necessarily determine where resources are spent’ explained our worldly, would-be Prime Minister. Hard words, indeed, and ones that might just as easily have escaped from the lips of a notoriously extremist Conservative Prime Minister, one who couldn’t quite bring herself to believe in society! Now, I wonder, what a certain Jeremy Corbyn might have said in response to our plea for solidarity?
She runs out of press at her launch because they’ve all gone to hear Andrea “I met Elvis on the moon’ Leadsom say she’s not going to keep running for Tory leader.
#ImWithArgh is going nicely on Twitter just now.
Her Facebook page is being spammed with #KeepCorbyn so fast and hard the admins can’t keep up…
Says it all, really. If this was an episode of The Thick of It, we’d think they were going over the top.
Indeed
I too have been impressed by the current performance of Andy Burnham. Sitting quietly and apparently loyally – like May did – he may end up with the poisoned chalice.
It’s a possibility
Your suspicion that it is all a sham is well founded. I am afraid that as the fool in King Lear says, Regan is like a crab is to a crab. They are both vacuous in policy terms.
I am sure you will be interested in this article here, stating that Teresa May’s husband is a senior executive in a 1.4 trn hedge fund that profits from tax avoiding companies.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-philip-may-amazon-starbucks-google-capital-group-philip-morris-a7133231.html
It does not fill me with confidence. Cameron in drag, I’m afraid.
Hedge funds often make lots of money (eg George Soros’s). They also sometimes go bust (anyone remember Lehman Bros?). Either way it’s their own and their investors’ money they bet with – not the taxpayers’. They don’t get bailed-out if they bet wrong. Also, if I understand correctly (Richard will certainly correct me if I’m wrong) hedging performs a valid and valued input into the operation of many businesses – hedging against future volatility in oil prices by airlines and shipping-companies is but one example – for which it makes sense to pay the hedge-funds’ charges. I don’t see why “tax avoiding” has to be intruded into this – unless it’s purely for the purpose of mud-slinging (and what useful purpose would that serve?)
Anyone going bust with limited liability imposes a cost on society including the government
They do not just gamble their own money as a result
That argument seems a non sequitur to me.
And is one to infer that you are opposed to the existence of limited liability? Abolition of it would certainly raise interesting possibilities.
I do vaguely remember coming across, and being impressed by, arguments that corporate bodies’ legal status as persons works contrary to the public good. Are you on the same tack, may one ask?
No
Pragmatically limited liability has worked
But we have to enforce the responsibilities that come with it
Including full accountability for its use
Up to now I think myself and other pro brexit bloggers on here have been proven right that politics would move more to the left on a vote leave. I repeatedly said that Boris and Gove would never be priminister and that a knowledgeable conservative government would understand what the majority of pro brexit people were about, from the speech Theresa May gave it appears so.
“I am going to be embarrassed if another of my ideas is taken by the right
The General Anti-Abuse Rule was
As was country-by-country reporting”
No need to be embarrassed, the idea of a general rule against tax abuse was around decades before you championed the idea. There was, for example, a statute in Canada’s tax laws in 1988 which invalidated any transaction “if not conducted for any primary purpose other than to obtain a tax benefit” (s245 [Canadian] ITA 1988).
There are many other similar examples.
Unless you’re going to try to claim you were influencing Canadian tax law 28 years ago?
And CBCR was put forward for the extractive industries long before you first wrote on the matter.
Please, take credit for championing other peoples’ ideas but it’s rather squalid to claim that they are ‘your’ ideas.
Besides, of course, the iterations being implemented are far removed from those you would like – you have said so yourself – so a more honest appraisal would be that;
your versions of other peoples’ ideas haven’t been taken up by those in power but you’ll keep campaigning that they should be.
Brenda
You are a troll
You know exactly why I made the suggestion I did and waste my reader’s time nit picking
Which is why you will now be on the automatic deletion list
Richard