politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The qualities LAB leadership voters are looking for – knowi

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The qualities LAB leadership voters are looking for – knowing how to win elections ranks 6th

Follow @MSmithsonPB

Read the full story here

dr_spyn

first.

Danny565

The funniest thing about the poll is, even among people who voted for the Elder Miliband, Kendall only barely scrapes more support than Corbyn.

2010 DAVID MILIBAND VOTERS
Burnham 32%
Cooper 29%
Kendall 21%
Corbyn 19%


2010 ED MILIBAND VOTERS
Corbyn 56%
Burnham 21%
Cooper 16%
Kendall 7%

Charles

Can I just say thank you to @SeanF for his kind comments on the last thread

Andy_Cooke

Being one of the top two political parties means that as well as offering an ideological platform, you also have to offer a credible alternative government.
These two elements can come into conflict; finding a suitable compromise position with the electorate whilst retaining sufficient of your ideological platform to make power meaningful is a difficult task to achieve and can be painful.
Sadly, both parties have too often seen this task and said "Bugger that, I abdicate." It took the Tories nearly a decade out of power before they bit the bullet. Labour look like following that well-trodden path at least as far, if not further.
It's arguably selfishly irresponsible.

Charles

On thread, I think you are over-analyzing this.

If someone was (1) in touch with the electorate (2) provided effective opposition (3) was a strong leader of (4) a united party there would be a good chance that they also know what they need to do to win.

ThomasNashe

It's also a matter of how these qualities are understood. I agree that the ability to provide 'effective opposition to the tories' is critical. But it seems the more deluded activists read that as just oppose, and forget about the operative word 'effective', which surely has to be measured by improved electoral results, rather than 'says the things I would say', or 'makes me feel good about myself'.

Danny565

Andy_Cooke said:

Being one of the top two political parties means that as well as offering an ideological platform, you also have to offer a credible alternative government.
These two elements can come into conflict; finding a suitable compromise position with the electorate whilst retaining sufficient of your ideological platform to make power meaningful is a difficult task to achieve and can be painful.
Sadly, both parties have too often seen this task and said "Bugger that, I abdicate." It took the Tories nearly a decade out of power before they bit the bullet. Labour look like following that well-trodden path at least as far, if not further.
It's arguably selfishly irresponsible.

Absolutely you have to have both principles and credibility. But the "principles" part of the equation is still important, and a party whose raison d'etre is to protect the poorest signing up for cuts in poor people's incomes is a bridge too far even for most Labour pragmatists.

david_herdson

Charles said:

On thread, I think you are over-analyzing this.

If someone was (1) in touch with the electorate (2) provided effective opposition (3) was a strong leader of (4) a united party there would be a good chance that they also know what they need to do to win.

I'd agree with that: many of the qualities listed overlap.

However, Mike is still right to highlight these figures as I suspect that they're not just what Labour leadership votes want from their new leader but also their personal priorities. And that demotes 'winning elections' well behind 'opposing the Tories': they're not particularly bothered about running the government; they just want to be seen to be making the right noises and 'winning the argument'.

And that's where the overlap stops because wanting to run a government means having to compromise with reality and with the electorate and that seems to be the precise opposite of what they want.

matt

@TN. You're right, "effective" is the key and it doesn't just mean shouting no or, as we'll see in the next 24 months, winning the odd vote because of a surprise whipping operation. It means a having a strategy, having tactics within that but most of all remembering that you're convincing the electorate that you're fit to be a government. Milliband E. was irredeemably poor at this. Being continuity Milliband isn't the answer.

kle4

Charles said:

On thread, I think you are over-analyzing this.

If someone was (1) in touch with the electorate (2) provided effective opposition (3) was a strong leader of (4) a united party there would be a good chance that they also know what they need to do to win.

You could drop (1) and know what you need to do to win. I know political parties like to be seen to be in touch with the electorate, particularly Labour, but not being seen as in touch didn't prevent Cameron winning a majority (granted, thanks to the particular set of circumstances that in the end proved favourable), and I feel confident Ed M beat him on that particular metric.

foxinsoxuk

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

On thread, I think you are over-analyzing this.

If someone was (1) in touch with the electorate (2) provided effective opposition (3) was a strong leader of (4) a united party there would be a good chance that they also know what they need to do to win.

I'd agree with that: many of the qualities listed overlap.

However, Mike is still right to highlight these figures as I suspect that they're not just what Labour leadership votes want from their new leader but also their personal priorities. And that demotes 'winning elections' well behind 'opposing the Tories': they're not particularly bothered about running the government; they just want to be seen to be making the right noises and 'winning the argument'.

And that's where the overlap stops because wanting to run a government means having to compromise with reality and with the electorate and that seems to be the precise opposite of what they want.

It is also a tacit acceptance of a right wing agenda. All the joys of seeing tax cuts, a crackdown on dole bludgers, demonisation of immigrants yet combining with a clean conscience that can be paraded to the world on social media. Perfect.

SouthamObserver

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

Sean_F

Charles said:

Can I just say thank you to @SeanF for his kind comments on the last thread

Thanks. I generally prefer nation states to empires (although I think that the history of the Middle East would have been happier if the Ottoman Empire had remained in place; and the history of central Europe would have been happier if Austria-Hungary had continued). But it's facile to condemn the British Empire in India without comparing it to its rival imperialists (such as Sikhs, Mahrattas, Mughals, Japanese etc.).

reverend_cat

Hustings tonight:

Yvette Cooper was weak, wouldn't hold an opinion on much. This won't play well.

Andy Burnham came across again as just flipping opinions that he thinks might suit voters. Bit weak.

Kendall rude and abrasive but held her own. Did well presenting an alternative.

Corbyn did well. Having his own views came across well again. Being partially Eurosceptic but from a different stance to Nigel Farage (when Farage phoned in) will go down well with some UKIP ex labour supporters. The rest were weak on Europe.

kle4

Sean_F said:

Charles said:

But it's facile to condemn the British Empire in India without comparing it to its rival imperialists (such as Sikhs, Mahrattas, Mughals etc.).

I've often felt that is a necessary context if people want to start making moral judgements (and given how recent the Empire was in some places, that is inevitable). It doesn't 'make up' for the bad stuff, but imperialism in one form or another has run rampant throughout history, including places that later themselves are subjected to imperial control from another, and it is at the least useful to take a look at the longer history and wider impacts than merely the latest.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Financier

The last two Communist MPs were defeated at the 1950 GE. The Daily Worker ceased publication in 1966 when it was replaced by the Morning Star (circ. 10k) for whom JC is claimed to have written.

Whilst JC is by far the best speaker and the one with recognisable policies (even if they are not relevant to the 21st C ), would he really wish to revert to the days of the Daily Worker?

The problem is that his two main opponents have just nothing to say and really are policyless wafflers, and the third progressive one is being vilified by a party that closes its ears to the truth and just does not want to listen to reality.

OchEye

At first sight, Clinton, H. (wife) as POTUS is probable. What is more interesting is who she could have as VPOTUS (doncha just love all these acronyms)? If she goes for Bernie Sanders, then an avoved and don't give a damn who knows it, socialist Democrat opens a totally new ball game.

SouthamObserver

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

Sean_F

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

Charles said:

But it's facile to condemn the British Empire in India without comparing it to its rival imperialists (such as Sikhs, Mahrattas, Mughals etc.).

I've often felt that is a necessary context if people want to start making moral judgements (and given how recent the Empire was in some places, that is inevitable). It doesn't 'make up' for the bad stuff, but imperialism in one form or another has run rampant throughout history, including places that later themselves are subjected to imperial control from another, and it is at the least useful to take a look at the longer history and wider impacts than merely the latest.

One can't assume that but for British rule, India would gave been prosperous. Look at China under the Manchus, the warlords, and Mao.

OchEye

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

Quite easy, block all transportation into and out of Catalonia. Cut all communication links. So sorry, but you have decided not to be a member of the EU, what else can we do?

OchEye

OchEye said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

Quite easy, block all transportation into and out of Catalonia. Cut all communication links. So sorry, but you have decided not to be a member of the EU, what else can we do?

Oh! So sorry, but we have deployed the Spanish Legion to protect our borders.

Edited : Nasty sods! http://www.mercenary-wars.net/elite-units/spanish-legion.html

HurstLlama

OchEye said:

OchEye said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

Quite easy, block all transportation into and out of Catalonia. Cut all communication links. So sorry, but you have decided not to be a member of the EU, what else can we do?

Oh! So sorry, but we have deployed the Spanish Legion to protect our borders.

Edited : Nasty sods! http://www.mercenary-wars.net/elite-units/spanish-legion.html

I think the Guarda Civil was formed with this sort of situation in mind, though probably it was not intended to keep them in reserve until after a region had declared UDI/the state had descended into chaos.

That said, since they stopped wearing their funny hats and carrying SMGs and rifle after dark has the Guarda still got the mojo for the paramilitary stuff?

HurstLlama

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

On the bright side we could encourage some of our more annoying but idealistic politicians and political commentators to go over and help out. Homage to Catalonia redux as it were.

ReggieCide

These Labour activists sure know their potatoes. The second quality they opt for only comes into play if the leader falls down on the sixth and the remaining top five qualities have nothing to do with power but help loads with “Labour activists against the World”. I can see how this perspective makes their priorities win win win win win.

SquareRoot

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

On the bright side we could encourage some of our more annoying but idealistic politicians and political commentators to go over and help out. Homage to Catalonia redux as it were.

Two things

1) HI HL hope ur OK

2) anyone recommend a travel agent specialising in Cuba?

HYUFD

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

ReggieCide

SeanT said:

I saw a beggar on Parkway, Camden, tonight.

He was quite fat, probably African, and his sign said

Help. No Have Job. No Have Food.

Without putting too fine a point on it, what the F is he doing here? He No Have English, either?

I see a lot of drunks, derelicts, junkies and saddos in Camden - we have hostels galore, alongside the £5m houses - and nearly all of them invoke pity. And bourgeois guilt.

But I confess my pity ran a bit dry with this guy. I suppose he could be a schizo asylum seeker (schizos tend to obesity) forced onto the streets by appalling Tory cuts?

Yet I can't help thinking he is some "migrant" or asylum seeker" we let in who has decided to sponge rather than work, because it is easier.

Whatever the case, if I was an upstanding British beggar, I'd be very angry.

In my experience they mostly sit down with their dog.

HYUFD

Danny565 said:

The funniest thing about the poll is, even among people who voted for the Elder Miliband, Kendall only barely scrapes more support than Corbyn.

2010 DAVID MILIBAND VOTERS
Burnham 32%
Cooper 29%
Kendall 21%
Corbyn 19%


2010 ED MILIBAND VOTERS
Corbyn 56%
Burnham 21%
Cooper 16%
Kendall 7%

So Burnham is the 'real Blairite' choice then, Corbyn the leftwing candidate and heir to Ed

TheScreamingEagles

Apologies if this has been posted before, but is this peak Guardian/CIF?

George Osborne ruined my yoga retreat - There’s no escaping the budget – not even when you’re halfway up an Italian hill with a bunch of highly literate yogis

http://bit.ly/1gOV9yq

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, Labour are trying to lull the Tories into a false sense of security right?

rottenborough

Not sure this fair. Can anyone be entirely sure what it would take to win in 2020?

William_H

Silly Labour people, thinking politicians should stand for something.

Plus, I assume the logic is that a leader who is in touch of with ordinary people, provides effective opposition to the Tories, is a Strong Leader and unites the party would actually stand a decent chance in an election. Crazy, I know?

OchEye

HurstLlama said:

OchEye said:

OchEye said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

Quite easy, block all transportation into and out of Catalonia. Cut all communication links. So sorry, but you have decided not to be a member of the EU, what else can we do?

Oh! So sorry, but we have deployed the Spanish Legion to protect our borders.

Edited : Nasty sods! http://www.mercenary-wars.net/elite-units/spanish-legion.html

I think the Guarda Civil was formed with this sort of situation in mind, though probably it was not intended to keep them in reserve until after a region had declared UDI/the state had descended into chaos.

That said, since they stopped wearing their funny hats and carrying SMGs and rifle after dark has the Guarda still got the mojo for the paramilitary stuff?

The Spanish Legion would be deployed. They have the mojo and they do have toys to play with. Their loyalty is to the state.

La Guarda's loyalty is still questionable.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, Labour are trying to lull the Tories into a false sense of security right?

I think they're trying to lure them into a true sense of security.

HurstLlama

SquareRoot said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

On the bright side we could encourage some of our more annoying but idealistic politicians and political commentators to go over and help out. Homage to Catalonia redux as it were.

Two things

1) HI HL hope ur OK

All things considered I am doing OK. Thanks for asking, Mr. Root.

ReggieCide

rottenborough said:

Not sure this fair. Can anyone be entirely sure what it would take to win in 2020?

Easier to know what it takes to lose

Fenster

"Intelligent" number 8. Lol.

There's hope for me yet.

madasafish

OchEye said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

Quite easy, block all transportation into and out of Catalonia. Cut all communication links. So sorry, but you have decided not to be a member of the EU, what else can we do?

Far simpler: just cut off all power and fuel supplies. Period..No-one will starve. They'll just get very cold and get sore feet from walking.

OchEye

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.

They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.

Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.

Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.

TheScreamingEagles

I've asked a few bookies to put a market on the Labour leader at the next election.

Shadsy says he'll have something by the morning.

rottenborough

reverend_cat said:

Hustings tonight:

Yvette Cooper was weak, wouldn't hold an opinion on much. This won't play well.

Andy Burnham came across again as just flipping opinions that he thinks might suit voters. Bit weak.

Kendall rude and abrasive but held her own. Did well presenting an alternative.

Corbyn did well. Having his own views came across well again. Being partially Eurosceptic but from a different stance to Nigel Farage (when Farage phoned in) will go down well with some UKIP ex labour supporters. The rest were weak on Europe.

The idiotic sentimentality that allowed MPs who did not want him as their leader to nominate him is exactly why Lab has already lost the 2020 GE.

HYUFD

Some good news for the GOP with Hillary trailing their top 3 in Iowa, Virginia and Colorado with Quinnipiac. Ohio is more Clinton country than all these 3 states which voted for Obama in 2008, Ohio voted for Clinton. Even if she loses all these 3 states + Florida she could win still if she wins Ohio, Nevada and Pennsylvania 275-263, I think this election will go to the wire
www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps07222015_Sg86de.pd

reverend_cat

Post LBC chat seems to unanimously give the win to Corbyn.

Interestingly there are people phoning in saying they don't tend to agree with Corbyn's politics but he is what British Politics needs and would not rule out voting for a man of conviction like him. So kind of goes in line with the statistics above.

Fenster

OchEye said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.

They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.

Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.

Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.

You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.

kle4

William_H said:

Silly Labour people, thinking politicians should stand for something.

I don't see that option in the list in the thread header. Being in touch with people is not standing for something, it's merely a generic attribute one might have even if you have no principles at all. I'd say the first one on the list that might be considered standing for something is 'takes on the powerful' and that was the fifth choice.

The problem is not that Labour supporters want the party to stand for something. It's that many of the 'pure in opposition' types seem to think that standing for something is or should be a unique attribute of the party, when I'd say most politicians stand for something (certainly not coherent ideologies, but something), even the robotic ones, and so anyone who might claim that is the difference between the major parties immediately sets of my cynicism alarm that they are tending toward believing Labour=good, others=bad (rather than Labour=better), a moral judgement I personally find hard to swallow.

But then again I thought Ed M was ok and that Labour would win the GE (with a majority, up until Feb 2015, when I switched to Lab plurality!) so I am clearly not representative of the electorate as a whole - perhaps they will like being told only Labour stand for things, if they go down that route.

SquareRoot

HurstLlama said:

SquareRoot said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

OT - I am very surprised how little coverage current events in Catalonia are getting over here. There is every chance that in September a separatist alliance will win the regional election there on an explicit promise to unilaterally declare independence. This will provoke a crisis western Europe has not seen for decades. We are not talking Greece here, we're talking the EU's 4th biggest economy. I would not rule out bloodshed. Not Croatia, Kosovo or Bosnia level slaughter, but it could be Slovenia-style skirmishing and hot headed exchanges of gunfire between different armed police forces or some such. The PP in Madrid have played things abysmally. It is an extremely fraught and dangerous situation that can only be avoided if this alliance - formed by Catalonia's two biggest parties and various civic institutions does not get an overall majority. I'd guess it's around 1/2 they will. As a point of interest ex Barcelona and current Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola is on the separatist list.

If they declare UDI, would anyone recognise them? I expect the Spanish could crush this without too much difficulty.

Of course - but crushing isn't really something a democracy should be doing, especially in response to an election result. And it will cause economic, financial and social chaos in what is Spain's richest region. There will be riots galore, at a minimum. It 's ridiculous it has got this far and reflects very poorly on both sides.

On the bright side we could encourage some of our more annoying but idealistic politicians and political commentators to go over and help out. Homage to Catalonia redux as it were.

Two things

1) HI HL hope ur OK

All things considered I am doing OK. Thanks for asking, Mr. Root.

look at ur e mail svp

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've asked a few bookies to put a market on the Labour leader at the next election.

Shadsy says he'll have something by the morning.

Excellent. Chukka, Stella, Jarvis, Reeves, Hunt. Any others?

HYUFD

Morning Consult 2016 GOP Nomination Poll

Donald Trump 22% [17%]
Jeb Bush 15% [19%]
Scott Walker 12% [7%]
Ben Carson 8% [5%]
Mike Huckabee 7% [6%]
Marco Rubio 6% [9%]
Rand Paul 5% [8%]
Chris Christie 4% [6%]
Ted Cruz 4% [6%]
http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-no-slump-after-attacks-on-mccain/

Meanwhile Trump has said “I will only ever RUN as a Republican” on the Dana Loesh show on the Blaze last night, though given the number of times he has changed his mind take it with a pinch of salt

TheScreamingEagles

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've asked a few bookies to put a market on the Labour leader at the next election.

Shadsy says he'll have something by the morning.

Excellent. Chukka, Stella, Jarvis, Reeves, Hunt. Any others?

Miliband, D

EPG

Charles said:

On thread, I think you are over-analyzing this.

If someone was (1) in touch with the electorate (2) provided effective opposition (3) was a strong leader of (4) a united party there would be a good chance that they also know what they need to do to win.

I think so too.

If winning elections and good media performer were the only important things, they may as well have David Cameron as the next Labour leader.

The real question is why Corbyn is doing so well from the evidence we see through a glass darkly. Potential answers:
Labour's 31 per cent fear being thrown under the bus, in policy terms, in the rush to get another 7 per cent.
The other candidates are not good enough to justify their inevitable concessions from traditional Labour policies. Labour people don't see them as PMs or election winners anyway so why sell out their values?
Lots of non-Labour people are supporting a perceived weak candidate insincerely (I don't believe this one much).
Labour voters feel an emotional attachment to their party and want to lash out at all the people who are talking it down, and five years is a long time anyway when you have a majority government, so the pay-off to self-sacrificial deeds and conscientious behaviour is far away.

kle4

reverend_cat said:

P
Interestingly there are people phoning in saying they don't tend to agree with Corbyn's politics but he is what British Politics needs and would not rule out voting for a man of conviction like him.

I'm not surprised. A lot of the more popular politicians are the mavericks, those who speak their mind, don't mince their words, challenge the status quo and so on. They stand out, they are more interesting and likable.

And yet the elite class of MPs developed into professional, identikit automatons for some reason, and the two party system seems stronger than ever (apart from Scotland, where things are in flux). Political leaders do things because it works electorally - I keep expecting a larger backlash against the largely disliked party robots who by and large lead us, but so far it appears that, while we like it on individual MPs like Corbyn, we don't like it in our leaders.

Ed M was not, to me, a scary prospect as leader, rightly or wrongly. But to many people he was, particularly with the SNP behind him. Many people will really like the idea of a Corbyn style leader - but I suspect even more people would fear him than did Ed M, and a Cameron like opponent who is largely unthreatening (which I am increasingly coming to see as Cameron's key strength) would do very well in that situation.

rottenborough

HYUFD said:

Morning Consult 2016 GOP Nomination Poll

Donald Trump 22% [17%]
Jeb Bush 15% [19%]
Scott Walker 12% [7%]
Ben Carson 8% [5%]
Mike Huckabee 7% [6%]
Marco Rubio 6% [9%]
Rand Paul 5% [8%]
Chris Christie 4% [6%]
Ted Cruz 4% [6%]
http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-no-slump-after-attacks-on-mccain/

Meanwhile Trump has said “I will only ever RUN as a Republican” on the Dana Loesh show on the Blaze last night, though given the number of times he has changed his mind take it with a pinch of salt

Looks like Jeb vs Walker then.

HYUFD

Fenster said:

OchEye said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.

They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.

Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.

Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.

You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.

We already have nationalised half the banks!

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've asked a few bookies to put a market on the Labour leader at the next election.

Shadsy says he'll have something by the morning.

Excellent. Chukka, Stella, Jarvis, Reeves, Hunt. Any others?

Miliband, D

Excellent point.

OchEye

Fenster said:

OchEye said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.

They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.

Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.

Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.

You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.

Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.

The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

reverend_cat said:

Hustings tonight:

Yvette Cooper was weak, wouldn't hold an opinion on much. This won't play well.

Andy Burnham came across again as just flipping opinions that he thinks might suit voters. Bit weak.

Kendall rude and abrasive but held her own. Did well presenting an alternative.

Corbyn did well. Having his own views came across well again. Being partially Eurosceptic but from a different stance to Nigel Farage (when Farage phoned in) will go down well with some UKIP ex labour supporters. The rest were weak on Europe.

The idiotic sentimentality that allowed MPs who did not want him as their leader to nominate him is exactly why Lab has already lost the 2020 GE.

I may disagree with him, but I fail to see why members should be denied the chance to vote for him if they so desire

Scott_P

@hugorifkind: Somebody who knows about these things should mock up what a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet might look like.

https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/623959982917201921

kle4

SeanT said:

William_H said:

Silly Labour people, thinking politicians should stand for something.

Plus, I assume the logic is that a leader who is in touch of with ordinary people, provides effective opposition to the Tories, is a Strong Leader and unites the party would actually stand a decent chance in an election. Crazy, I know?

wants more beards

Any particular kinds, or does he support a free for all? It's important, as certain types might be acceptable to increase in popularity, but a surge in goatees (regrettably the only sort of beard I can grow) would be to the denigration of society, so if he is not planning on that caveat restriction in his future beardtopia, then he is truly mad.

HYUFD

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.

They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.

Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.

Yes, well Cameron and Blair were criticised for being shifty. Corbyn can afford to be honest and straightforward, he honestly and straightforwardly wants a socialist nation, he has no interest in that being unelectable

chestnut

Defining leadership as opposing the Tories is a sign of a protest ensemble rather than a potential government.

AlastairMeeks

Current best prices:

Andy Burnham 6/5 (Ladbrokes)
Yvette Cooper 14/5 (Betfair)
Jeremy Corbyn 7/2 (Betfair)
Liz Kendall 25/1 (Bet365)

There's an underround, so there must be value there somewhere. Personally I'd write off Liz Kendall too.

AlastairMeeks

Thanks for all the kind words earlier. I don't think they're deserved, but I enjoyed them anyway.

OchEye

kle4 said:

reverend_cat said:

P
Interestingly there are people phoning in saying they don't tend to agree with Corbyn's politics but he is what British Politics needs and would not rule out voting for a man of conviction like him.

I'm not surprised. A lot of the more popular politicians are the mavericks, those who speak their mind, don't mince their words, challenge the status quo and so on. They stand out, they are more interesting and likable.

And yet the elite class of MPs developed into professional, identikit automatons for some reason, and the two party system seems stronger than ever (apart from Scotland, where things are in flux). Political leaders do things because it works electorally - I keep expecting a larger backlash against the largely disliked party robots who by and large lead us, but so far it appears that, while we like it on individual MPs like Corbyn, we don't like it in our leaders.

Ed M was not, to me, a scary prospect as leader, rightly or wrongly. But to many people he was, particularly with the SNP behind him. Many people will really like the idea of a Corbyn style leader - but I suspect even more people would fear him than did Ed M, and a Cameron like opponent who is largely unthreatening (which I am increasingly coming to see as Cameron's key strength) would do very well in that situation.

Daleks: Exterminate, Exterminate, raise taxes, Austerity, Austerity, Austerity. Zzzzzzzziiiizzzzz!

HYUFD

Fears of Solidarity infiltration in the SNP
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/13463776.Fears_over_infiltration_of_Tommy_Sheridan_supporters_in_SNP/

EPG

Sean_F said:

Charles said:

Can I just say thank you to @SeanF for his kind comments on the last thread

Thanks. I generally prefer nation states to empires (although I think that the history of the Middle East would have been happier if the Ottoman Empire had remained in place; and the history of central Europe would have been happier if Austria-Hungary had continued). But it's facile to condemn the British Empire in India without comparing it to its rival imperialists (such as Sikhs, Mahrattas, Mughals, Japanese etc.).

Why, though?

Surely we don't have licence to be as bad as our worst neighbour. When we are asked to pay our taxes, we don't protest that Starbucks and Amazon don't. And we don't look at a massive welfare fraudster and tell ourselves we can commit our own littler fraud.

It seems like a way of setting certain behaviours in the past and distancing ourselves from the past, when the truth is that long-term consequences exist and certain countries still behave that way in Africa (say) without being immune from criticism (nor should they be).

kle4

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

reverend_cat said:

Hustings tonight:

Yvette Cooper was weak, wouldn't hold an opinion on much. This won't play well.

Andy Burnham came across again as just flipping opinions that he thinks might suit voters. Bit weak.

Kendall rude and abrasive but held her own. Did well presenting an alternative.

Corbyn did well. Having his own views came across well again. Being partially Eurosceptic but from a different stance to Nigel Farage (when Farage phoned in) will go down well with some UKIP ex labour supporters. The rest were weak on Europe.

The idiotic sentimentality that allowed MPs who did not want him as their leader to nominate him is exactly why Lab has already lost the 2020 GE.

I may disagree with him, but I fail to see why members should be denied the chance to vote for him if they so desire

Nor do I, but if that's what the party wants, they should adopt a system which does not require MPs to nominate a potential leader, as it leads to the silly situation where people nominated someone they didn't want and a few publicly regret it, looking silly. As it is, plenty of people may have wanted the chance to vote for some other Labour figure, but because they were not liked by enough MPs and didn't get sympathy nominations, cannot.

What about all those passionate Mary Creagh supporters, they have been denied the chance to vote for her because MPs didn't care for her.

As it is, if the system they have requires MP nominations, it would have been perfectly appropriate for Corbyn not to get on the ballot if he failed to get enough of those nominations, since clearly the idea behind the system is someone should have some measure of parliamentary support.

Sean_F

kle4 said:

reverend_cat said:

P
Interestingly there are people phoning in saying they don't tend to agree with Corbyn's politics but he is what British Politics needs and would not rule out voting for a man of conviction like him.

I'm not surprised. A lot of the more popular politicians are the mavericks, those who speak their mind, don't mince their words, challenge the status quo and so on. They stand out, they are more interesting and likable.

And yet the elite class of MPs developed into professional, identikit automatons for some reason, and the two party system seems stronger than ever (apart from Scotland, where things are in flux). Political leaders do things because it works electorally - I keep expecting a larger backlash against the largely disliked party robots who by and large lead us, but so far it appears that, while we like it on individual MPs like Corbyn, we don't like it in our leaders.

Ed M was not, to me, a scary prospect as leader, rightly or wrongly. But to many people he was, particularly with the SNP behind him. Many people will really like the idea of a Corbyn style leader - but I suspect even more people would fear him than did Ed M, and a Cameron like opponent who is largely unthreatening (which I am increasingly coming to see as Cameron's key strength) would do very well in that situation.

It's a sad fact that you can take your supporters for granted - right up till the moment they turn against you. FPTP is like tying elastic round a brick, and pulling. At first nothing happens, but finally the brick flys up and hits you.

rcs1000

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

kle4

OchEye said:

Fenster said:

OchEye said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.

They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.

Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.

Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.

You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.

Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.

I wasn't aware of that, but I would comment that I do think Tories playing the 'they want to nationalise X!' card do need to be cautious, since as you say on that one, and certainly with some other industries, people don't always mind that idea (though perhaps they would object to, say Ed M doing it if they dislike Ed M).

kle4

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

reverend_cat said:

P
Interestingly there are people phoning in saying they don't tend to agree with Corbyn's politics but he is what British Politics needs and would not rule out voting for a man of conviction like him.

I'm not surprised. A lot of the more popular politicians are the mavericks, those who speak their mind, don't mince their words, challenge the status quo and so on. They stand out, they are more interesting and likable.

And yet the elite class of MPs developed into professional, identikit automatons for some reason, and the two party system seems stronger than ever (apart from Scotland, where things are in flux). Political leaders do things because it works electorally - I keep expecting a larger backlash against the largely disliked party robots who by and large lead us, but so far it appears that, while we like it on individual MPs like Corbyn, we don't like it in our leaders.

Ed M was not, to me, a scary prospect as leader, rightly or wrongly. But to many people he was, particularly with the SNP behind him. Many people will really like the idea of a Corbyn style leader - but I suspect even more people would fear him than did Ed M, and a Cameron like opponent who is largely unthreatening (which I am increasingly coming to see as Cameron's key strength) would do very well in that situation.

It's a sad fact that you can take your supporters for granted - right up till the moment they turn against you.

Labour and Scotland springs to mind. I do wonder if and when safe seats for Labour and the Tories in England might come up to that moment you mention. Can't see it in most places yet, but maybe one day.

HYUFD

Daniel Hannan on why a Corbyn win would be bad for the Tories

'Look, I’m just going to come right out and say it: I like Jeremy Corbyn. In a world full of sleekit, image-conscious politicians, he’s genuine. He didn’t enter Parliament for popularity or power or pelf. He lives frugally (I’ve only ever seen him arrive at meetings by bike or public transport) and has spent the past 30 years taking up all manner of unloved causes, from Irish republicanism to – well, to British republicanism.

Many of Corbyn’s Labour colleagues remark on his humourlessness; some call it sourness. But I don’t see why that should count against him. Earnestness, in politics, is often the flip-side of conviction. There has always been an honourable place in the HOUSE of Commons for Roundheads.

An honourable place, too, for the Bennite tradition which Corbyn represents – if not exactly a large place. If we had proportional representation, Corbyn might lead small socialist party along the lines of Germany’s Die Linke or Denmark’s Red-Green Alliance. First-past-the-post ensures that that tendency must instead find expression within a much wider Labour movement.

Fond as I am of the fellow, I am not one of the #ToriesForCorbyn who have sprung up across social media – and who, reportedly, include the Prime Minister. I can see the tactical attractions, obviously. A Corbyn-led Labour party would probably split. Even if it didn’t, it would sink to a 1983-style defeat. Against such a party, the Conservatives might be mediocre, pedestrian, self-serving and still stroll to victory.'
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/07/daniel-hannan-mep-a-corbyn-victory-would-be-bad-for-the-conservatives.html

SquareRoot

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

I expect that is why he became a RC. He hoped that confession would atone for his sins. It will have to be a very forgiving god, with all those deaths as a result of decision he took...

Sean_F

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

Charles said:

Can I just say thank you to @SeanF for his kind comments on the last thread

Thanks. I generally prefer nation states to empires (although I think that the history of the Middle East would have been happier if the Ottoman Empire had remained in place; and the history of central Europe would have been happier if Austria-Hungary had continued). But it's facile to condemn the British Empire in India without comparing it to its rival imperialists (such as Sikhs, Mahrattas, Mughals, Japanese etc.).

Why, though?

Surely we don't have licence to be as bad as our worst neighbour. When we are asked to pay our taxes, we don't protest that Starbucks and Amazon don't. And we don't look at a massive welfare fraudster and tell ourselves we can commit our own littler fraud.

It seems like a way of setting certain behaviours in the past and distancing ourselves from the past, when the truth is that long-term consequences exist and certain countries still behave that way in Africa (say) without being immune from criticism (nor should they be).

The past is a different country. No doubt future generations will find plenty to criticise about us.

AlastairMeeks

It's fair to say that John Rentoul isn't happy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ed-milibands-vanity-has-doomed-labour-for-a-generation-10408697.html

Danny565

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

reverend_cat said:

P
Interestingly there are people phoning in saying they don't tend to agree with Corbyn's politics but he is what British Politics needs and would not rule out voting for a man of conviction like him.

I'm not surprised. A lot of the more popular politicians are the mavericks, those who speak their mind, don't mince their words, challenge the status quo and so on. They stand out, they are more interesting and likable.

And yet the elite class of MPs developed into professional, identikit automatons for some reason, and the two party system seems stronger than ever (apart from Scotland, where things are in flux). Political leaders do things because it works electorally - I keep expecting a larger backlash against the largely disliked party robots who by and large lead us, but so far it appears that, while we like it on individual MPs like Corbyn, we don't like it in our leaders.

Ed M was not, to me, a scary prospect as leader, rightly or wrongly. But to many people he was, particularly with the SNP behind him. Many people will really like the idea of a Corbyn style leader - but I suspect even more people would fear him than did Ed M, and a Cameron like opponent who is largely unthreatening (which I am increasingly coming to see as Cameron's key strength) would do very well in that situation.

It's a sad fact that you can take your supporters for granted - right up till the moment they turn against you. FPTP is like tying elastic round a brick, and pulling. At first nothing happens, but finally the brick flys up and hits you.

LOL, one of the best and accurate analogies I've read. Bookmarked.

HurstLlama

SquareRoot said:

look at ur e mail svp

Nothing arrived this end. HurstLlama at Gmail.com should work though.

Jonathan

SeanT said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.

Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.

Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.

Labour are diseased.

Three cheers for Ted Heath.

kle4

antifrank said:

It's fair to say that John Rentoul isn't happy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ed-milibands-vanity-has-doomed-labour-for-a-generation-10408697.html

Now, if Labour is only defeated again in 2020 and 2025 it will have got off lightly

Oh come on, it's not that bad surely? I know this feels like the lowest ebb for Labour, and I know that pundits don't worry about looking silly with overly firm predictions that end up being completely wrong (Hell, I didn't let my abject failure in predicting an Ed M premiership with absolutely zero grace for alternate views slow me down, and professionals are even better at maintaining confidence in the face of such failure), but if Corbyn (or Burnham, or whoever) ends up winning in 2020 they are going to feel pretty darn silly for predicting 2025 losses this far in advance. Hedge your bets, man, at least only predict certain failure in 2020, even if the Tories are led by Peter Bone in a Thatcher wig.

AlastairMeeks

The Telegraph lead story is nonsense. Most of the MPs named as recanting had made it clear from the outset that they weren't supporting Jeremy Corbyn.

AlastairMeeks

kle4 said:

antifrank said:

It's fair to say that John Rentoul isn't happy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ed-milibands-vanity-has-doomed-labour-for-a-generation-10408697.html

Now, if Labour is only defeated again in 2020 and 2025 it will have got off lightly

Oh come on, it's not that bad surely? I know this feels like the lowest ebb for Labour, and I know that pundits don't worry about looking silly with overly firm predictions that end up being completely wrong (Hell, I didn't let my abject failure in predicting an Ed M premiership with absolutely zero grace for alternate views slow me down, and professionals are even better at maintaining confidence in the face of such failure), but if Corbyn (or Burnham, or whoever) ends up winning in 2020 they are going to feel pretty darn silly for predicting 2025 losses this far in advance. Hedge your bets, man, at least only predict certain failure in 2020, even if the Tories are led by Peter Bone in a Thatcher wig.

What you're getting is the emotion. Given that John Rentoul is an imam of the Blairites, he gives an insight into their likely thinking as to their next steps. We'll see some sulking, some fighting and a farewell symphony. I don't get any hint of a wish to defect or to serve in a leftwing Labour shadow Cabinet.

JEO

kle4,

I'm starting to wonder whether Labour electing Corbyn would be better for them than them electing Cooper or Burnham with Corbyn just a few percent behind. The first would probably result in him losing a few local elections before being replaced by the next election. The second scenario would cause the Labour left to feel robbed, and then when a mediocre Brownite didn't achieve much, would leave the "we weren't true enough lefties" idea alive for the next leadership election.

Speedy

SeanT said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.

Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.

Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.

Labour are diseased.

Can't you understand that everyone hates Blair because everyone agrees on the bad things that he did to his country?

I'll repeat it:
The only thing that matters in life and in politics is the end.
Blair started as a saint but ended up as a devil.

It does not matter if he won 3 elections if he was one of the worst PM's in history.

tyson

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Really Seant (stupid ridiculous, narcissistic being that you are) . Thatcher in her latter years was utterly wretched, profoundly reduced by mental illness, the ultimate leveller, living her last years in isolation and madness.

Actually, I wouldn't wish that on Thatcher, or anyone else to that matter. We only live once. I doubt Osborne in his latter years will revel too much in making the poor poorer (or the rich richer as he has done), or Cameron will think back to trying to reverse a vote where foxes can be terrifyingly torn apart by a pack of dogs.

What about not dealing with climate change? Will this be what Cameron or Osborne think about when they see the world as it is in fifty years time or so? Will Cameron or Osborne dwell too much on EVEL, or trying to reverse the human rights act as their greatest act? What about the desperate migrants from Africa that Cameron closed the door to? Will this be his greatest act when Cameron contemplates the end of his life?

We live once. There are not too people around who at the end of their lives can think back and believe that they did something, anything particularly well.

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

kle4 said:

antifrank said:

It's fair to say that John Rentoul isn't happy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ed-milibands-vanity-has-doomed-labour-for-a-generation-10408697.html

Now, if Labour is only defeated again in 2020 and 2025 it will have got off lightly

Oh come on, it's not that bad surely? I know this feels like the lowest ebb for Labour, and I know that pundits don't worry about looking silly with overly firm predictions that end up being completely wrong (Hell, I didn't let my abject failure in predicting an Ed M premiership with absolutely zero grace for alternate views slow me down, and professionals are even better at maintaining confidence in the face of such failure), but if Corbyn (or Burnham, or whoever) ends up winning in 2020 they are going to feel pretty darn silly for predicting 2025 losses this far in advance. Hedge your bets, man, at least only predict certain failure in 2020, even if the Tories are led by Peter Bone in a Thatcher wig.

What you're getting is the emotion. Given that John Rentoul is an imam of the Blairites, he gives an insight into their likely thinking as to their next steps. We'll see some sulking, some fighting and a farewell symphony. I don't get any hint of a wish to defect or to serve in a leftwing Labour shadow Cabinet.

He's not an Imam of the Blairites, he's the Grand Mufti of Blairism

William_H

SeanT said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.

Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.

Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.

Labour are diseased.

Labour honours plenty of its gods and fathers. But Blair is Loki

Scott_P

TheScreamingEagles said:

He's not an Imam of the Blairites, he's the Grand Mufti of Blairism

The Great Pooh Bah?

Tim_B

There's a CONCACAF semi-final down the road in half an hour - who knew? It's buried on Fox Sports 1.

The pre-game show is on one of the lowlier ESPN networks.

Sean_F

Speedy said:

SeanT said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.

Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.

Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.

Labour are diseased.

Can't you understand that everyone hates Blair because everyone agrees on the bad things that he did to his country?

I'll repeat it:
The only thing that matters in life and in politics is the end.
Blair started as a saint but ended up as a devil.

It does not matter if he won 3 elections if he was one of the worst PM's in history.

Ain't that a fact.

Or, "call no man happy until he is dead."

HYUFD

SeanT said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.

Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.

Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.

Labour are diseased.

Attlee is the socialist Thatcher (and he also won the popular vote in 3 elections), to socialists Blair is the equivalent of Heath to Tory activists! Both were seen as having won office but betrayed their party and their nation in the process

JEO

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

Charles said:

Can I just say thank you to @SeanF for his kind comments on the last thread

Thanks. I generally prefer nation states to empires (although I think that the history of the Middle East would have been happier if the Ottoman Empire had remained in place; and the history of central Europe would have been happier if Austria-Hungary had continued). But it's facile to condemn the British Empire in India without comparing it to its rival imperialists (such as Sikhs, Mahrattas, Mughals, Japanese etc.).

Why, though?

Surely we don't have licence to be as bad as our worst neighbour. When we are asked to pay our taxes, we don't protest that Starbucks and Amazon don't. And we don't look at a massive welfare fraudster and tell ourselves we can commit our own littler fraud.

It seems like a way of setting certain behaviours in the past and distancing ourselves from the past, when the truth is that long-term consequences exist and certain countries still behave that way in Africa (say) without being immune from criticism (nor should they be).

The article in question was arguing that Britain should pay India reparations. To justify that case, you need to believe that India was worse off because of British rule than it would have been without it. That case is hard to make: the alternative powers, be they the Sikhs, Mughals or Marathas, would have been no better in the 1700s and 1800s, and likely worse for the first half of the 20th Century. It's hard to see native rulers implementing parliaments, trial by jury and English common law before peacefully handing over power to the people.

Jonathan

Speedy said:

SeanT said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.

Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.

Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.

Labour are diseased.

Can't you understand that everyone hates Blair because everyone agrees on the bad things that he did to his country?

I'll repeat it:
The only thing that matters in life and in politics is the end.
Blair started as a saint but ended up as a devil.

It does not matter if he won 3 elections if he was one of the worst PM's in history.

Nah. Politicians go in and out of fashion.

volcanopete

SeanT said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Blair is, of course, still alive.

But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.

Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.

Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.

Labour are diseased.

No, not diseased just stuck.Until there can be a full profit and loss account to assess Blair,and this is not on offer until Chilcot-if it ever happens,Labour cannot move forward.The Blair I voted for gave us the HRA,FOI,NMW and peace in NI.I guess all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely explains what happened to that man.

Danny565

Quote from Blair today:

"I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."

For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.

It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to tell them they were wrong about their views on the economy ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .

TheScreamingEagles

Looks like Kendall is being urged to pull out to deny Corbyn

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKjHUXoWEAEFeaH.jpg

HYUFD

SeanT said:

Christ, Blair looks sad now, tho, doesn't he.

Hated by his own party. Haunted by Iraq.

A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.

Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him

Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too

Speedy

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like Kendall is being urged to pull out to deny Corbyn

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKjHUXoWEAEFeaH.jpg

Well that won't do a thing, her second preferences were hardly going to go to Corbyn anyway.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like Kendall is being urged to pull out to deny Corbyn

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKjHUXoWEAEFeaH.jpg

I suppose her pulling out would add a bare couple of first person percentage points to Cooper/Burnham. What a difference.

HYUFD

OchEye said:

Fenster said:

OchEye said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Has this been posted?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/three-refuse-to-answer-if-ed-would-be-in-cabinet-113370

Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.

Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.

They all look terrified and dwarvish.

Heh.

Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard

Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.

They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.

Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.

Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.

You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.

Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.

The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.

No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks

AlastairMeeks

Danny565 said:

Quote from Blair today:

"I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."

For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.

Of course they are. It's a hard left conceit that only they have principles.