Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
This settles it; I would actually prefer the dismal decline manager to win the next GE than Starmer - the stench of entitlement and 'it's in the bag lads' emanating from Starmer is reaching us all the way from Kiev.
Shocked, I am, that Toryguy1983 would prefer the Tories to win the next GE. Stunning news.
It has nothing to do with liking the Tories. Starmer, like Sunak, is a meaningless administrator who prefers stitch ups at Davos to punch ups at Westminster.
Surely indy is done and dusted, the Telegraph, Mail, Express, Times, Speccie and Andrew Neil have said so. They certainly seemed to have convinced each other.
I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.
If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.
When was parliament representative?
Why is a political party defining who it wants to represent it unreasonable? Is that not the whole point of a party, that they can filter down the mass of the public into those with the views and policies they want as their representatives?
If the wacky characters and cranks want to join parliament they have other options, they are not required to be included anymore than utter cretins should be properly represented.
There are sound reasons for being wary of parties easing or forcing out those its leadreship don't like. Being unrepresentative is not one of them I think.
From the perspective of someone who is somewhere in the middle on Scottish independence I wonder if Sturgeon's resignation is a good thing as it provides an opportunity to escape the current logjam. Long term, as long as UK remains a predominantly right-of-centre country with a sprinkling of left-of-centre governments occasionally disrupting the flow, I suspect independence will still be on. I think Scotland and England seem to have really quite different political leanings, which isn't very sustainable.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
Is this a serious post?!
It's not properly cautioning if it is raising a scenario which is exceedingly unlikely, and even if it wasn't, is a very long way off.
That's like someone cautioning me against causing water damage to their house if I seek to spray some on mine, which is currently on fire.
I really don't know why people overthink Corbyn's views when whatever else one can say about them they are straightforward. He thinks it is wrong to fight, even in one's own defence.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Prestwick ,,,, have you not heard of Rhoose Cardiff International Airport
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
The debate on the previous thread demonstrates precisely why Starmer is trying to put the Corbyn issue to bed well in advance of the next GE.
The last thing he wants during the election campaign is for Labour's message to be hijacked by endless vitriolic debate on the Labour candidate for Islington North and his stance on Israel, Ukraine, Russia etc. Not many votes in that, and the media will love it. Even PB can't resist resuscitating it.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Prestwick ,,,, have you not heard of Rhoose Cardiff International Airport
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
Prestwick cost £1 to buy but is eating over £1m of public money a year and for what? Keeping one or two constituencies in the SNP column, that's it.
OT (sorry): I wenrt to see Mogwai in Bath last night. They dedicated one song to 'the people who threw that statue in the harbour'*.
There is of course a very predictable response on here to things like this (somewhere in the response will be the word 'wokerati', possibly in capital letters) but I'm more interested in the debate about the role of statues in learning history.
At the time, on one side, many people argued that we should learn from statues and to remove them was to try to erase history. On the other side many argued that statues were a poor way to learn history.
I always felt that tearing that statue down (whatever it's other merits or otherwise) was making history. And to me, the fact that a Glaswegian band who are famously taciturn on stage bother to dedicate a song to an act of public destruction that happened a few years ago suggests to me that history has been made. History as spectacle, if you will. Which I find a lot more interesting than history as a lump of marble or metal that most people wander past without noticing and a few people feel thoroughly excluded by.
Anyone care to disagree?
*Yes, they did get the wrong city. But, then, nothing interesting ever happens in Bath, so you can't really blame them.
I like Mogwai, but just don't really share their politics. I've been to quite a few gigs where bands just make stupid and naive political statements. One folk singer in 2017 told a story about an assassination attempt on Mussolini in 1931, her conclusion was the would-be assassin 'had the right idea'. There is another band I really like, First Aid Kit, who were giving poorly advised speeches in America about the 'benefits of immigration', as if it was a 'light over dark' type of struggle.
I don't mind statues of colonialists getting taken down but think it is better to try and do this through a democratic process, rather than the mob rule hysteria that went on in 2020. I see it as a low point in history, on a par with the 2011 London riots. It was the failure of democracy. People who celebrate things like that show that they just don't respect the value of things like order and democracy, it is sad, but I will carry on listening to their music.
You have my sympathies. I remember going to see The Prodigy back in the day; loved their music and energy, felt very uncomfortable with their politics (as I recall their warmup act was some sort of BNP tribute act, very odd).
I agree with much of your second paragraph (other than the comparison with the 2011 riots - having been resident in both cities at the times in question that strikes me as hyperbole). However, I do find my view of the Colston statue destruction is changing as I see the cultural impact of the act. That's not to say Mogwai were right to say what they did, but the fact that the statue being torn down is, for them, a defining feature of visiting Bristol (well, Bath!) shows, I think, that the act had a cultural value that starts to raise its status above mere criminal damage.
Wasn't their best gig, though. Some real highlights (first time I've heard Mogwai Fear Satan live, Remurdered is always incredible) but a bit too much noodling in between. Though Mogwai on an off day are still an excellent night out.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
Is this a serious post?!
It's not properly cautioning if it is raising a scenario which is exceedingly unlikely, and even if it wasn't, is a very long way off.
That's like someone cautioning me against causing water damage to their house if I seek to spray some on mine, which is currently on fire.
I really don't know why people overthink Corbyn's views when whatever else one can say about them they are straightforward. He thinks it is wrong to fight, even in one's own defence.
Of course it is a serious post.
The thing about wars is they are un-fucking-predictable. Nobody knows how this war will end.
You describe something as "exceedingly unlikely" .
How have you reckoned the probabiity ? Let's see how you have estimated this.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Boak.
Never mind Stuart, I am sure there is some subsample to make you feel better if you look hard enough.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
She is not alone in her discouragement of North Sea oil and gas investment - it is UK Government policy too. Not to mention banks like HSBC. What the main driving factor in it is remains unclear, but net zero zealotry, sucking up to bigger global oil producers, and not wanting anything to succeed outside the EU are probably ingredients. Where's Truss when we need her?
The debate on the previous thread demonstrates precisely why Starmer is trying to put the Corbyn issue to bed well in advance of the next GE.
The last thing he wants during the election campaign is for Labour's message to be hijacked by endless vitriolic debate on the Labour candidate for Islington North and his stance on Israel, Ukraine, Russia etc. Not many votes in that, and the media will love it. Even PB can't resist resuscitating it.
OT (sorry): I wenrt to see Mogwai in Bath last night. They dedicated one song to 'the people who threw that statue in the harbour'*.
There is of course a very predictable response on here to things like this (somewhere in the response will be the word 'wokerati', possibly in capital letters) but I'm more interested in the debate about the role of statues in learning history.
At the time, on one side, many people argued that we should learn from statues and to remove them was to try to erase history. On the other side many argued that statues were a poor way to learn history.
I always felt that tearing that statue down (whatever it's other merits or otherwise) was making history. And to me, the fact that a Glaswegian band who are famously taciturn on stage bother to dedicate a song to an act of public destruction that happened a few years ago suggests to me that history has been made. History as spectacle, if you will. Which I find a lot more interesting than history as a lump of marble or metal that most people wander past without noticing and a few people feel thoroughly excluded by.
Anyone care to disagree?
*Yes, they did get the wrong city. But, then, nothing interesting ever happens in Bath, so you can't really blame them.
I like Mogwai, but just don't really share their politics. I've been to quite a few gigs where bands just make stupid and naive political statements. One folk singer in 2017 told a story about an assassination attempt on Mussolini in 1931, her conclusion was the would-be assassin 'had the right idea'. There is another band I really like, First Aid Kit, who were giving poorly advised speeches in America about the 'benefits of immigration', as if it was a 'light over dark' type of struggle.
I don't mind statues of colonialists getting taken down but think it is better to try and do this through a democratic process, rather than the mob rule hysteria that went on in 2020. I see it as a low point in history, on a par with the 2011 London riots. It was the failure of democracy. People who celebrate things like that show that they just don't respect the value of things like order and democracy, it is sad, but I will carry on listening to their music.
You have my sympathies. I remember going to see The Prodigy back in the day; loved their music and energy, felt very uncomfortable with their politics (as I recall their warmup act was some sort of BNP tribute act, very odd).
I agree with much of your second paragraph (other than the comparison with the 2011 riots - having been resident in both cities at the times in question that strikes me as hyperbole). However, I do find my view of the Colston statue destruction is changing as I see the cultural impact of the act. That's not to say Mogwai were right to say what they did, but the fact that the statue being torn down is, for them, a defining feature of visiting Bristol (well, Bath!) shows, I think, that the act had a cultural value that starts to raise its status above mere criminal damage.
Wasn't their best gig, though. Some real highlights (first time I've heard Mogwai Fear Satan live, Remurdered is always incredible) but a bit too much noodling in between. Though Mogwai on an off day are still an excellent night out.
Something has value to band few have ever heard of shows something has cultural value? Well its a view I guess
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Prestwick ,,,, have you not heard of Rhoose Cardiff International Airport
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
Prestwick cost £1 to buy but is eating over £1m of public money a year and for what? Keeping one or two constituencies in the SNP column, that's it.
The cost of Rhoose is already 52 + 42.6 + 42.6 million = 137.2 million, and it is running an operating loss of 1.7 million a year.
So, if Prestwick is a calamity, can you find a word to describe the monumental fuck-up at Rhoose?
You don't know how lucky you are to have the SNP.
We'll swap you Drake and the gang for some competent nationalist politicians.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
Corbyn is drawing a distinction between material that allows Ukraine to repel Russian troops within the boundaries of Ukraine .... and material that allows Russia itself to be invaded.
If Russia itself is invaded, there is only one outcome.
Nothing rallies a population more than a country being invaded. Experts on Pb.com to the contrary, the invasion of Russia will lead to support for Putin & the Russian Army increasing.
There will be irresistible clamours for use of nuclear weapons.
The invasion of Russia proper would be the end of it all ... and that is what Corbyn is properly cautioning about.
Is this a serious post?!
It's not properly cautioning if it is raising a scenario which is exceedingly unlikely, and even if it wasn't, is a very long way off.
That's like someone cautioning me against causing water damage to their house if I seek to spray some on mine, which is currently on fire.
I really don't know why people overthink Corbyn's views when whatever else one can say about them they are straightforward. He thinks it is wrong to fight, even in one's own defence.
The doctrine that governed all military aid to Ukraine in the early stages of the war was 'defensive' aid. We may have got past that now, but Corbyn isn't alone in drawing that distinction.
We spoke to Mrs Stodge's mother in flood-ravaged Hawkes Bay yesterday evening. Plenty of community spirit in the retirement village and given she has survived doodlebugs, skiffle and me marrying her daughter, I suspected a little bit of wind and rain wouldn't bother her but the notion of no electricity for perhaps a fortnight certainly made me realise how dependent we are on power.
The main house at the retirement village has a diesel generator so they are providing hot food and drinks for the residents as well as a place to meet that's light and warm. They have also had visit from the Defence Force which as you can imagine was a bit of a treat.
Unfortunately, the death toll is rising slowly - now six dead and many still missing.
The debate on the previous thread demonstrates precisely why Starmer is trying to put the Corbyn issue to bed well in advance of the next GE.
The last thing he wants during the election campaign is for Labour's message to be hijacked by endless vitriolic debate on the Labour candidate for Islington North and his stance on Israel, Ukraine, Russia etc. Not many votes in that, and the media will love it. Even PB can't resist resuscitating it.
Israel, maybe. But, I am not sure you are right on Ukraine/Russia.
I think many ordinary people see their bills going up because of this war and would like it stopped.
If the war is still going on by 2024, then a politician who breaks ranks and calls for it to be ended will find the policy a vote winner.
s far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, from all accounts he is a hard working constituency MP and there are many in his locality who will attest to his efforts on their behalf.
Whatever his political views and his impact on the Labour Party, the first job of any MP must be to work hard for their constituents and Corbyn has always done that.
The fact is, as we've seen elsewhere, however, all the local work counts for very little if the Party disowns you and you end up as an independent - will Corbyn suffer the same electoral fate as Dave Nellist?
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
s far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, from all accounts he is a hard working constituency MP and there are many in his locality who will attest to his efforts on their behalf.
Whatever his political views and his impact on the Labour Party, the first job of any MP must be to work hard for their constituents and Corbyn has always done that.
The fact is, as we've seen elsewhere, however, all the local work counts for very little if the Party disowns you and you end up as an independent - will Corbyn suffer the same electoral fate as Dave Nellist?
I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.
If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.
When was parliament representative?
Why is a political party defining who it wants to represent it unreasonable? Is that not the whole point of a party, that they can filter down the mass of the public into those with the views and policies they want as their representatives?
If the wacky characters and cranks want to join parliament they have other options, they are not required to be included anymore than utter cretins should be properly represented.
There are sound reasons for being wary of parties easing or forcing out those its leadreship don't like. Being unrepresentative is not one of them I think.
Problem is that the Corbyn era showed why it was a mistake to pretend that some on the far left were harmless eccentrics to be patted on the head and indulged a bit, as Miliband certainly did and Blair did by largely just ignoring them as an irrelevance while his project was a success (part of a wider failure of succession planning). Some journalists and Jewish groups/academics were highlighting him as problematic long before 2015 and Labour largely ignored it as just the far left being the far left. Unpleasant at times but unable to do much. Fundamentally 2015-19 proved this was an error as Labour can't be a mainstream party if it's only ever one membership spasm away from electing leaders who, at best, tolerate and enable antisemitism when it comes from the far left, hold conspiracist worldviews, and fundamentally oppose the international defence and economic architecture Labour had a hand in setting up to protect us from tyranny to the extent that they're unmoved from it even after a situation with the moral clarity of the invasion of Ukraine. In some ways Corbyn is a victim of his own success as well as failure. By managing to take control of the party and screwing up so appallingly, he's shown why certain views can't really have a place in it and either need revising or to find a home elsewhere.
As far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, from all accounts he is a hard working constituency MP and there are many in his locality who will attest to his efforts on their behalf.
Whatever his political views and his impact on the Labour Party, the first job of any MP must be to work hard for their constituents and Corbyn has always done that.
The fact is, as we've seen elsewhere, however, all the local work counts for very little if the Party disowns you and you end up as an independent - will Corbyn suffer the same electoral fate as Dave Nellist?
Parties rarely disown people. Corbyn was a serial rebel but it doesn't sound as though it was ever really contemplated that they should attempt to bring him down. They didn't need to, as a party can take having a certain number of independent minded figures, and its actually good for them as it keeps them on their toes unless they have a landslide level majority.
If he fought and won as an independent sure he'd be upset at losing the link to Labour which has been a big part of his life, but he'd still be able to work hard for his residents and go on all the rallies for all the causes he wants, so really it sounds pretty good for him. No compromises necessary. With a good night predicted for Labour as a whole it's not like it would undermine their chance of victory overall.
So he really should go for it. Not easy to win without party backing, definitely, but worth a go.
s far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, from all accounts he is a hard working constituency MP and there are many in his locality who will attest to his efforts on their behalf.
Whatever his political views and his impact on the Labour Party, the first job of any MP must be to work hard for their constituents and Corbyn has always done that.
The fact is, as we've seen elsewhere, however, all the local work counts for very little if the Party disowns you and you end up as an independent - will Corbyn suffer the same electoral fate as Dave Nellist?
Nellist ran in the Birmingham Erdington by-election last March and came third, beating the LDs, Reform and the Greens.
I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.
If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.
When was parliament representative?
Why is a political party defining who it wants to represent it unreasonable? Is that not the whole point of a party, that they can filter down the mass of the public into those with the views and policies they want as their representatives?
If the wacky characters and cranks want to join parliament they have other options, they are not required to be included anymore than utter cretins should be properly represented.
There are sound reasons for being wary of parties easing or forcing out those its leadreship don't like. Being unrepresentative is not one of them I think.
Fundamentally 2015-19 proved this was an error as Labour can't be a mainstream party if it's only ever one membership spasm away from electing leaders who....
Not alone in facing problems due to memberships of course.
Problem is we are not in the era of mass memberships (SNP aside perhaps), even with the rise in Labour membership under Corbyn (though it was closer to that at least), and giving members the vote has not really returned to that era.
So you end up without any benefit of some kind of representative membership, but gain a large unruly mass that is much more entitled than it used to be - we've seen on here people speculate what's the point of being a member if you don't have a leadership vote - and who even if the MPs don't mess up, no easy task, might mess up for them.
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Prestwick ,,,, have you not heard of Rhoose Cardiff International Airport
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
Prestwick cost £1 to buy but is eating over £1m of public money a year and for what? Keeping one or two constituencies in the SNP column, that's it.
I'm surprised you don't mention the Queensferry Crossing. You know, the thing you surely see almost every day. But it opened well below budget and only a little late despite appalling weather slowing construction. .
Whilst I think Sturgeon was certainly formidible that is an interest quote about anyone with any impartiality would concede her as being the pre-eminent politician of her generation.
Would that claim be undermined if the next leader also led the SNP to thumping electoral victories and huge poll leads, that those were more the result of other factors and not the leader herself, or would it be taken as a sign of the enduring good work of Sturgeon?
s far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, from all accounts he is a hard working constituency MP and there are many in his locality who will attest to his efforts on their behalf.
Whatever his political views and his impact on the Labour Party, the first job of any MP must be to work hard for their constituents and Corbyn has always done that.
The fact is, as we've seen elsewhere, however, all the local work counts for very little if the Party disowns you and you end up as an independent - will Corbyn suffer the same electoral fate as Dave Nellist?
Peter Law, Blaenau Gwent.
To be fair, Nellist got 29% and was third in a very tight race only 40 votes behind the Conservative and 1,400 behind the Labour candidate.
George Gardiner got deselected and despite having been MP for 23 years won just 7% in 1997.
So much depends on churn in the electorate and a whole series of other factors.
Whilst I think Sturgeon was certainly formidible that is an interest quote about anyone with any impartiality would concede her as being the pre-eminent politician of her generation.
Would that claim be undermined if the next leader also led the SNP to thumping electoral victories and huge poll leads, that those were more the result of other factors and not the leader herself, or would it be taken as a sign of the enduring good work of Sturgeon?
But that also applies to, say, Ms Truss or Mr Sunak or Mr Corbyn.
How many Slab and ScoTory leaders has she seen off? (Not to mention the odd SNP one, it must be admitted.)
How many Tory PMs has she outlasted?
How many Tory PMs can claim to have her electoral record, per 100 constituencies?
Whilst I think Sturgeon was certainly formidible that is an interest quote about anyone with any impartiality would concede her as being the pre-eminent politician of her generation.
Would that claim be undermined if the next leader also led the SNP to thumping electoral victories and huge poll leads, that those were more the result of other factors and not the leader herself, or would it be taken as a sign of the enduring good work of Sturgeon?
But that also applies to, say, Ms Truss or Mr Sunak or Mr Corbyn.
How many Slab and ScoTory leaders has she seen off? (Not to mention the odd SNP one, it must be admitted.)
How many Tory PMs has she outlasted?
How many Tory PMs can claim to have her electoral record, per 100 constituencies?
Yes it would apply, that's why I'm curious if follow up success would be seen as diminishing her or building her up.
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
whoosh … truss … support … whoosh
I really have no idea what that means - is it a cultural reference? I haven't been paying attention to your posts, but I take it you're one of the sorry specimins who ran to Sunak and now it's gone to shit has to double down on the Truss hate?
s far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, from all accounts he is a hard working constituency MP and there are many in his locality who will attest to his efforts on their behalf.
Whatever his political views and his impact on the Labour Party, the first job of any MP must be to work hard for their constituents and Corbyn has always done that.
The fact is, as we've seen elsewhere, however, all the local work counts for very little if the Party disowns you and you end up as an independent - will Corbyn suffer the same electoral fate as Dave Nellist?
Peter Law, Blaenau Gwent.
To be fair, Nellist got 29% and was third in a very tight race only 40 votes behind the Conservative and 1,400 behind the Labour candidate.
George Gardiner got deselected and despite having been MP for 23 years won just 7% in 1997.
So much depends on churn in the electorate and a whole series of other factors.
Yes I agree with that. I'd rate Corbyn as (slight) favourite to hold if he ran as Independent.
Like Blaenau Gwent, it is not as though the seat will fall to the Tories.
The winner will either be Corby as Independent Labour, or Wulfrun_LobbyFodder with the Very Pale Red Rosette.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Prestwick ,,,, have you not heard of Rhoose Cardiff International Airport
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
Prestwick cost £1 to buy but is eating over £1m of public money a year and for what? Keeping one or two constituencies in the SNP column, that's it.
I'm surprised you don't mention the Queensferry Crossing. You know, the thing you surely see almost every day. But it opened well below budget and only a little late despite appalling weather slowing construction. .
Without wishing to offend anyone, the Elizabeth Line (or Crossrail), while a fantastic success in terms of passenger numbers, was very late and well over budget so I 'm not sure whether this is an argument for or against anything.
Major infrastructure projects are often places when rhetoric bumps up against reality in an expensive way.
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Prestwick ,,,, have you not heard of Rhoose Cardiff International Airport
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
Prestwick cost £1 to buy but is eating over £1m of public money a year and for what? Keeping one or two constituencies in the SNP column, that's it.
I'm surprised you don't mention the Queensferry Crossing. You know, the thing you surely see almost every day. But it opened well below budget and only a little late despite appalling weather slowing construction. .
Without wishing to offend anyone, the Elizabeth Line (or Crossrail), while a fantastic success in terms of passenger numbers, was very late and well over budget so I 'm not sure whether this is an argument for or against anything.
Major infrastructure projects are often places when rhetoric bumps up against reality in an expensive way.
True, but the QC saving would pay for Prestwick till about 2270!
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
whoosh … truss … support … whoosh
I really have no idea what that means - is it a cultural reference? I haven't been paying attention to your posts, but I take it you're one of the sorry specimins who ran to Sunak and now it's gone to shit has to double down on the Truss hate?
Probably not FPT but on topic I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Prestwick ,,,, have you not heard of Rhoose Cardiff International Airport
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
Prestwick cost £1 to buy but is eating over £1m of public money a year and for what? Keeping one or two constituencies in the SNP column, that's it.
I'm surprised you don't mention the Queensferry Crossing. You know, the thing you surely see almost every day. But it opened well below budget and only a little late despite appalling weather slowing construction. .
Without wishing to offend anyone, the Elizabeth Line (or Crossrail), while a fantastic success in terms of passenger numbers, was very late and well over budget so I 'm not sure whether this is an argument for or against anything.
Major infrastructure projects are often places when rhetoric bumps up against reality in an expensive way.
Indeed, but so far as I know Crossrail wasn;t used to attack one political party rather than another (though itr'd be difficult considering who the mayors of London were over the period in question).
AIUI the contract for the QC was written in such a way that costs were controlled for the public purse.
No. Nor filleted. Sturgeon's recent actions and departure are symptoms not causes of something. The something is that the chances of achieving Scottish independence are very very slight, for the foreseeable future.
This is a mixture of luck, politics, geography and reality.
The nonsense that ended with the SC's inevitable judgement was pure playacting for delay; the GRR fiasco will never fit any rational analysis; the ploy that a GE could be a proxy referendum meant that she had to go in time for the impossible policy to be changed before the election happened. Again, all it bought was limited time.
To achieve independence once Ref1 was lost required only one thing, and that is still the case. That one thing is the settled will of 60%+ of the Scottish voting population that they truly deeply want it having taken account of the realities involved including the hardest issues.
This has failed, and will continue to do so until something unforeseen changes.
My own view is that this fails because on balance it is impossible to make the case for it.
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
How old were you when Thatcher resigned Lucky?
7ish.
You could tell the difference between her and a Teletubby, and evidently provide a basic assessment of their respective political programmes, at that age? I'm impressed.
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
Also, if this admittedly pro-development author has it right there are some NIMBY Tories actually opposed to easy building on Brownfield as well as Greenfield.
Would be interesting were Corbyn to run as an Independent.
Holborn and St Pancras would be an interesting seat for him to stand in.
If he stands in his old seat he has an approx 50%+ chance of winning. In H and St P (where I lived in the old Frank Dobson days) the chance is approximately zero.
This insane comment, on a story about a mother and daughter who tragically died of carbon monoxide poisoning after they switched on a motor in a burger van they were decorating for a birthday surprise, is so utterly perfect and of its type I had to share it -
Would be interesting were Corbyn to run as an Independent.
Holborn and St Pancras would be an interesting seat for him to stand in.
If he stands in his old seat he has an approx 50%+ chance of winning. In H and St P (where I lived in the old Frank Dobson days) the chance is approximately zero.
But if he split the Starmer vote and let the Tory in that would be better than winning in his own seat surely?
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
How old were you when Thatcher resigned Lucky?
7ish.
You could tell the difference between her and a Teletubby, and evidently provide a basic assessment of their respective political programmes, at that age? I'm impressed.
I knew I supported her not Heseltine at that age. I did not know anything about them, but I knew that.
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
The long view of the polls (go back to 2000 or so) is a trend towards independence, but it's not yet decisive. The polling since 2014 looks like a bit of a coin toss;
And a second defeat really would kill Sindy stone dead for a generation.
Would be interesting were Corbyn to run as an Independent.
Holborn and St Pancras would be an interesting seat for him to stand in.
If he stands in his old seat he has an approx 50%+ chance of winning. In H and St P (where I lived in the old Frank Dobson days) the chance is approximately zero.
But if he split the Starmer vote and let the Tory in that would be better than winning in his own seat surely?
Look it up. If he halved the Labour vote, as long as Jezza gets one vote less than Labour, SKS gets in.
Would be interesting were Corbyn to run as an Independent.
Holborn and St Pancras would be an interesting seat for him to stand in.
If he stands in his old seat he has an approx 50%+ chance of winning. In H and St P (where I lived in the old Frank Dobson days) the chance is approximately zero.
I used to live in Islington North. Corbyn was pretty anonymous IIRC.
I don't need anything. I would quite like a PM of any colour (in every sense) who is determined for Britain to succeed. I really think Thatcher was the last one.
whoosh … truss … support … whoosh
I really have no idea what that means - is it a cultural reference? I haven't been paying attention to your posts, but I take it you're one of the sorry specimins who ran to Sunak and now it's gone to shit has to double down on the Truss hate?
Just a play on words Lucky, nothing more.
It has been a busy week I'm afraid so there's no way I'm going to get any wordplay.
Also, if this admittedly pro-development author has it right there are some NIMBY Tories actually opposed to easy building on Brownfield as well as Greenfield.
This insane comment, on a story about a mother and daughter who tragically died of carbon monoxide poisoning after they switched on a motor in a burger van they were decorating for a birthday surprise, is so utterly perfect and of its type I had to share it -
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
In a pure polling sense, you're right, no. It is more or less coin toss stuff on the polls, though I would expect (even being pro-indy as I am) that Yes needs a clearer lead to account for a lot more of the don't know/don't say voters breaking for No on the day.
But in the sense that Scottish politics is generally going a bit stale and rancid on all sides whilst the constitutional log jam basically dominates all other elements of the political discourse, probably sooner rather than later is more desirable.
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
The long view of the polls (go back to 2000 or so) is a trend towards independence, but it's not yet decisive. The polling since 2014 looks like a bit of a coin toss;
And a second defeat really would kill Sindy stone dead for a generation.
There is no foreseeable route to Scottish independence. Every route goes via a referendum, and the strength of support required to hold one has never been sustained. And if there were one it would be lost.
After Brexit we will never hold referendums with so many unexamined assumptions again. The closer you look, the harder independence is to justify. This time there would have to be a detailed document to work to about what it meant. It would not survive scrutiny.
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
In a pure polling sense, you're right, no. It is more or less coin toss stuff on the polls, though I would expect (even being pro-indy as I am) that Yes needs a clearer lead to account for a lot more of the don't know/don't say voters breaking for No on the day.
But in the sense that Scottish politics is generally going a bit stale and rancid on all sides whilst the constitutional log jam basically dominates all other elements of the political discourse, probably sooner rather than later is more desirable.
Possibly, although it has to be said clearing the Uk-EU logjam does not seem to have made things less stale and rancid.
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
The long view of the polls (go back to 2000 or so) is a trend towards independence, but it's not yet decisive. The polling since 2014 looks like a bit of a coin toss;
And a second defeat really would kill Sindy stone dead for a generation.
There is no foreseeable route to Scottish independence. Every route goes via a referendum, and the strength of support required to hold one has never been sustained. And if there were one it would be lost.
After Brexit we will never hold referendums with so many unexamined assumptions again. The closer you look, the harder independence is to justify. This time there would have to be a detailed document to work to about what it meant. It would not survive scrutiny.
Correct. The 2014 referendum had people voting for a pig in a poke.
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
The long view of the polls (go back to 2000 or so) is a trend towards independence, but it's not yet decisive. The polling since 2014 looks like a bit of a coin toss;
And a second defeat really would kill Sindy stone dead for a generation.
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
In a pure polling sense, you're right, no. It is more or less coin toss stuff on the polls, though I would expect (even being pro-indy as I am) that Yes needs a clearer lead to account for a lot more of the don't know/don't say voters breaking for No on the day.
But in the sense that Scottish politics is generally going a bit stale and rancid on all sides whilst the constitutional log jam basically dominates all other elements of the political discourse, probably sooner rather than later is more desirable.
Possibly, although it has to be said clearing the Uk-EU logjam does not seem to have made things less stale and rancid.
Very true.
I suppose at least there a different rancid breeze wafted through after the referendum. Or something.
Would be interesting were Corbyn to run as an Independent.
Holborn and St Pancras would be an interesting seat for him to stand in.
If he stands in his old seat he has an approx 50%+ chance of winning. In H and St P (where I lived in the old Frank Dobson days) the chance is approximately zero.
Yes. Indeed, I'd suggest Starmer would privately welcome such a move. The clearer the contrast between old and new management, the better for him.
The issue isn't Momentum loons flooding one seat and taking some votes (while failing to win) - it's the optics across several hundred seats.
Shame that if anything comes from any of these various probes it'll probably just cement GOP support for Trump, then try to get him into office in time.
Comments
FPT but on topic
I recognise that but for me the bigger problem was her total lack of interest in the Scottish economy. Her eyes famously glazed over when economic matters came up and there have been a series of calamities on her watch, the ferries, Prestwick, the discouragement of investment in the North Sea, BiFab, these are just recent examples. The sad fact is that Scotland as an independent nation is a lot less viable than it looked in 2014 and much more dependent on UK money and cross subsidy. As a Unionist I deeply regret that. I can only hope that her successor pays more attention.
Biden live press conference on shot-down UFOs… “ The latest assessment is that they were private balloons”, Biden says.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-64670366
Why is a political party defining who it wants to represent it unreasonable? Is that not the whole point of a party, that they can filter down the mass of the public into those with the views and policies they want as their representatives?
If the wacky characters and cranks want to join parliament they have other options, they are not required to be included anymore than utter cretins should be properly represented.
There are sound reasons for being wary of parties easing or forcing out those its leadreship don't like. Being unrepresentative is not one of them I think.
It's not properly cautioning if it is raising a scenario which is exceedingly unlikely, and even if it wasn't, is a very long way off.
That's like someone cautioning me against causing water damage to their house if I seek to spray some on mine, which is currently on fire.
I really don't know why people overthink Corbyn's views when whatever else one can say about them they are straightforward. He thinks it is wrong to fight, even in one's own defence.
If Prestwick is a "calamity", there are no words in the English language to describe the cataclysm of Rhoose. Prestwick cost the Scottish Govt £1.
Rhoose cost the Welsh Govt £52 million, then received a grant of up to £42.6m and separately £42.6m of the airport's debt was written off.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-airport-welsh-government-debt-19955141
The thing about the SNP "calamities" is that there are still minuscule compared to the daily disasters of Llafur. Here they are simultaneously cancelling all road projects and reducing bus services.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64640215
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-64650058
Wales should be back at the Stone Age by the time the Drake has gone.
Llafur in Wales has gone from failing to improve the Welsh economy to actively sabotaging it - ensuring that more and more jobs and opportunities will be going to England
The SNP look absolutely bloody brilliant from Wales.
The last thing he wants during the election campaign is for Labour's message to be hijacked by endless vitriolic debate on the Labour candidate for Islington North and his stance on Israel, Ukraine, Russia etc. Not many votes in that, and the media will love it. Even PB can't resist resuscitating it.
I agree with much of your second paragraph (other than the comparison with the 2011 riots - having been resident in both cities at the times in question that strikes me as hyperbole). However, I do find my view of the Colston statue destruction is changing as I see the cultural impact of the act. That's not to say Mogwai were right to say what they did, but the fact that the statue being torn down is, for them, a defining feature of visiting Bristol (well, Bath!) shows, I think, that the act had a cultural value that starts to raise its status above mere criminal damage.
Wasn't their best gig, though. Some real highlights (first time I've heard Mogwai Fear Satan live, Remurdered is always incredible) but a bit too much noodling in between. Though Mogwai on an off day are still an excellent night out.
The thing about wars is they are un-fucking-predictable. Nobody knows how this war will end.
You describe something as "exceedingly unlikely" .
How have you reckoned the probabiity ? Let's see how you have estimated this.
So, if Prestwick is a calamity, can you find a word to describe the monumental fuck-up at Rhoose?
You don't know how lucky you are to have the SNP.
We'll swap you Drake and the gang for some competent nationalist politicians.
Because we will never need her...
We spoke to Mrs Stodge's mother in flood-ravaged Hawkes Bay yesterday evening. Plenty of community spirit in the retirement village and given she has survived doodlebugs, skiffle and me marrying her daughter, I suspected a little bit of wind and rain wouldn't bother her but the notion of no electricity for perhaps a fortnight certainly made me realise how dependent we are on power.
The main house at the retirement village has a diesel generator so they are providing hot food and drinks for the residents as well as a place to meet that's light and warm. They have also had visit from the Defence Force which as you can imagine was a bit of a treat.
Unfortunately, the death toll is rising slowly - now six dead and many still missing.
I think many ordinary people see their bills going up because of this war and would like it stopped.
If the war is still going on by 2024, then a politician who breaks ranks and calls for it to be ended will find the policy a vote winner.
Whatever his political views and his impact on the Labour Party, the first job of any MP must be to work hard for their constituents and Corbyn has always done that.
The fact is, as we've seen elsewhere, however, all the local work counts for very little if the Party disowns you and you end up as an independent - will Corbyn suffer the same electoral fate as Dave Nellist?
"A victim who lost his post office, house and marriage in the IT scandal is set to *hand back* £322,000 in compensation."
https://twitter.com/TomWitherow/status/1626277288164704257
If he fought and won as an independent sure he'd be upset at losing the link to Labour which has been a big part of his life, but he'd still be able to work hard for his residents and go on all the rallies for all the causes he wants, so really it sounds pretty good for him. No compromises necessary. With a good night predicted for Labour as a whole it's not like it would undermine their chance of victory overall.
So he really should go for it. Not easy to win without party backing, definitely, but worth a go.
Nobody been banged up yet, apart from the innocent postmasters?
From a few days ago.
https://twitter.com/Fyrishsunset/status/1625993800576299012/photo/1
Problem is we are not in the era of mass memberships (SNP aside perhaps), even with the rise in Labour membership under Corbyn (though it was closer to that at least), and giving members the vote has not really returned to that era.
So you end up without any benefit of some kind of representative membership, but gain a large unruly mass that is much more entitled than it used to be - we've seen on here people speculate what's the point of being a member if you don't have a leadership vote - and who even if the MPs don't mess up, no easy task, might mess up for them.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1626311133488418816
In any case, it's not the fish that do filleting, but the other way round. So there is a moment of dissonance.
Would that claim be undermined if the next leader also led the SNP to thumping electoral victories and huge poll leads, that those were more the result of other factors and not the leader herself, or would it be taken as a sign of the enduring good work of Sturgeon?
'It's AJOCKALYPSE NOW for Labour.'
Of unsubtlety.
George Gardiner got deselected and despite having been MP for 23 years won just 7% in 1997.
So much depends on churn in the electorate and a whole series of other factors.
People frequently criticise/disagree with me, it's fine.
How many Slab and ScoTory leaders has she seen off? (Not to mention the odd SNP one, it must be admitted.)
How many Tory PMs has she outlasted?
How many Tory PMs can claim to have her electoral record, per 100 constituencies?
Like Blaenau Gwent, it is not as though the seat will fall to the Tories.
The winner will either be Corby as Independent Labour, or Wulfrun_LobbyFodder with the Very Pale Red Rosette.
Major infrastructure projects are often places when rhetoric bumps up against reality in an expensive way.
AIUI the contract for the QC was written in such a way that costs were controlled for the public purse.
https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2017/08/30/queensferry-crossing-opens-245m-below-budget/
This is a mixture of luck, politics, geography and reality.
The nonsense that ended with the SC's inevitable judgement was pure playacting for delay; the GRR fiasco will never fit any rational analysis; the ploy that a GE could be a proxy referendum meant that she had to go in time for the impossible policy to be changed before the election happened. Again, all it bought was limited time.
To achieve independence once Ref1 was lost required only one thing, and that is still the case. That one thing is the settled will of 60%+ of the Scottish voting population that they truly deeply want it having taken account of the realities involved including the hardest issues.
This has failed, and will continue to do so until something unforeseen changes.
My own view is that this fails because on balance it is impossible to make the case for it.
It doesn't like fowl language.
EXCLUSIVE. DUP's Nigel Dodds warns all: "Northern Ireland is colonised by the EU. That is intolerable for every unionist"
"If the Brexit Protocol and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) are still there, we won’t go back into the executive in Belfast"
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1626212825298239488?cxt=HHwWgICw0dr8u5EtAAAA
Also, if this admittedly pro-development author has it right there are some NIMBY Tories actually opposed to easy building on Brownfield as well as Greenfield.
https://capx.co/does-theresa-villiers-accept-there-is-a-housing-shortage/
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/man-finds-mum-and-teen-sister-dead-in-burger-van-birthday-ho-282198/
EDIT his reply later in the thread is even better
Is a quick Sindyref really in the best interests of the cause of Scottish Independence?
The long view of the polls (go back to 2000 or so) is a trend towards independence, but it's not yet decisive. The polling since 2014 looks like a bit of a coin toss;
And a second defeat really would kill Sindy stone dead for a generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holborn_and_St_Pancras_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Is he aware there is a National Curriculum at all?
So many seem to think what is to be taught is devised by teachers.
I wish.
But in the sense that Scottish politics is generally going a bit stale and rancid on all sides whilst the constitutional log jam basically dominates all other elements of the political discourse, probably sooner rather than later is more desirable.
After Brexit we will never hold referendums with so many unexamined assumptions again. The closer you look, the harder independence is to justify. This time there would have to be a detailed document to work to about what it meant. It would not survive scrutiny.
I suppose at least there a different rancid breeze wafted through after the referendum. Or something.
The issue isn't Momentum loons flooding one seat and taking some votes (while failing to win) - it's the optics across several hundred seats.
The report summarises a two-year grand jury probe into their conduct after Mr Trump narrowly lost the state in 2020.
It says the grand jury believes some witnesses - who weren't named - committed perjury in their evidence to the panel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64656296
Shame that if anything comes from any of these various probes it'll probably just cement GOP support for Trump, then try to get him into office in time.