Given that under FPTP, with Duverger's Law, only two parties will realistically be able to offer to lead a Government, and one is currently in Government ... Labour seem intent on abdicating their responsibility to be a credible alternative Government. But they're still hogging the second seat out of the two, preventing any other altermative credible Government. So ... if Labour are truly intent on indulging their ideological pleasure at the cost of providing a credible alternative, would they mind terribly vacating that seat? Their are others who'd like a go, if they're no longer interested.
The SNP?
They could have success if they developed an English offshoot promising federalism, an English parliament and a centrist agenda
I've been reading a long thread on Facebook today, featuring comments from otherwise sane and normal adults, who are all pro-Corbyn.
She was massacred too.
The world is going mad.
I find that the majority of British people have spent very little time (and have no intention of doing so) in getting a good understanding of - essentially - "how the world works" (be that economics, societies, etc). Perfectly nice people, with good careers, etc, as you say become strange animals when discussing politics, especially on social media.
(Long-time lurker btw... I've been reading pb.com since it started but now feel I should make a comment or two as I think politics in the UK really is getting interesting! Never mind the rise of UKIP or the SNP - I sense it's the demise of Labour that's the biggie...)
You should see Cif, it's out Mailing The Mail at the moment. Anything about Corbyn has become madder than Cybernattery, any suggestion that he won't win in 2020 with a landslide is greeted with calls to
There are probably three reasons why things are going crazy, with each comprising a section of the Corbynites. Firstly there's the fact the hard left never thought they'd get a chance to take over the Labour Party, and they won't take kindly to anyone threatening to spoil their party. Having had to mumble and grumble either from within or in a variety of rag bag outfits, they're relishing giving those who stray from their creed a good kicking. They don't particularly care if Corbyn is totally unelectable - 21% of the vote is better than the sod all they currently get.
Then there's the young, I say this as someone who is basically still that myself but we can be very foolish politically because we lack the folk memories of others. A 22-year-old will have known Tony Blair only as a perma-tanned 'war criminal' not an electoral juggernaut. They'll have spent the entire adolescent/adult life with a moderate Labour being unpopular and so see in Corbyn hope. Mentioning the fact that Labour has had these battles since at least the 1960s or that a milder version of Corbynism was tried and failed in the 1980s is met with a blank stare and 'but..'. See also how Occupy was 'going to change the world'.
Lastly, as you rightly point out very few people understand electoral mechanics and that the electorate doesn't think like their peer group, with most not giving a toss and then voting for whoever is most plausible, and that people aren't suddenly going to acclaim Corbyn because you like him. Therefore they're easily swayed by myths and canards - see also the Green surge.
Being a Labour member is terrifying atm.
That's so true. Corbyn is very appealing to lot of people, like Livingstone.
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
Mr. EPG, they had time to do Brown in, but Miliband (David) and perhaps others bottled it.
They had a false tilt at Miliband in 2014, but they'd left it too late.
Another possibility. Most of the party didn't want to bump them off. Whereas it seems from the Guardian post-mortem of the Lib Dems that Clegg in 2014 had a lucky escape.
Mr. Mark, if only someone had specifically bred a species of giant haddock with which some sense could be slapped into the aforementioned people.
If we can learn the lessons of the Second Punic War, surely it's not too much to ask that people have some vague familiarity with events so recent as to count not so much as history as current events?
John Mann's intervention tells you everything you need to know about the febrile nature of today's Labour party.
Labour's feral nature would be more appropriate..!
John Mann strikes me as the modern equivalent of a Geoffrey Dickens or Peter Brunievals. ie a less than talented bullshiter who can't resist a microphone, and the media knows it.
Geoffrey Dickens was a loudmouth, but he was clearly one of the good guys, when it came to exposing child sex scandals.
Sometimes the annoying truculent people ar right.
Saw an old episode of Drop The Dead Donkey on repeat the other week.
That was a hit BBC sit-com in the 90s. It was making jokes like, 'Girlfriend? Oh no, he prefers little boys!' Guffaw.
Up until fairly recently, this was seen as a joke.
I think everyone has encountered the teacher/scoutmaster/politician/priest with the wandering hand. And mostly, they're pathetic, rather than dangerous. So, we laughed at them.
"The History Boys" was a more recent hit where very few reviewers were too bothered by the dodgy acts in it. (There were a few who slammed the play and then the film because they felt it made child sexual abuse in a school setting appear somehow acceptable, but many more just said the homoerotic aspect at an all-boys grammar school felt authentic.)
I've been reading a long thread on Facebook today, featuring comments from otherwise sane and normal adults, who are all pro-Corbyn.
She was massacred too.
The world is going mad.
I find that the majority of British people have spent very little time (and have no intention of doing so) in getting a good understanding of - essentially - "how the world works" (be that economics, societies, etc). Perfectly nice people, with good careers, etc, as you say become strange animals when discussing politics, especially on social media.
(Long-time lurker btw... I've been reading pb.com since it started but now feel I should make a comment or two as I think politics in the UK really is getting interesting! Never mind the rise of UKIP or the SNP - I sense it's the demise of Labour that's the biggie...)
You should see Cif, it's out Mailing The Mail at the moment. Anything about Corbyn has become madder than Cybernattery, any suggestion that he won't win in 2020 with a landslide is greeted with calls to
There are probably three reasons why things are going crazy, with each comprising a section of the Corbynites. Firstly there's the fact the hard left never thought they'd get a chance to take over the Labour Party, and they won't take kindly to anyone threatening to spoil their party. Having had to mumble and grumble either from within or in a variety of rag bag outfits, they're relishing giving those who stray from their creed a good kicking. They don't particularly care if Corbyn is totally unelectable - 21% of the vote is better than the sod all they currently get.
Then there's the young, I say this as someone who is basically still that myself but we can be very foolish politically because we lack the folk es of others. A 22-year-old will have known Tony Blair only as a perma-tanned 'war criminal' not an electoral juggernaut. They'll have spent the entire adolescent/adult life with a moderate Labour being unpopular and so see in Corbyn hope. Mentioning the fact that Labour has had these battles since at least the 1960s or that a milder version of Corbynism was tried and failed in the 1980s is met with a blank stare and 'but..'. See also how Occupy was 'going to change the world'.
Lastly, as you rightly point out very few people understand electoral mechanics and that the electorate doesn't think like their peer group, with most not giving a toss and then voting for whoever is most plausible, and that people aren't suddenly going to acclaim Corbyn because you like him. Therefore they're easily swayed by myths and canards - see also the Green surge.
Being a Labour member is terrifying atm.
That's so true. Corbyn is very appealing to lot of people, like Livingstone.
Mr. Cooke, might be a good situation for the Lib Dems. Farage's hokey-cokey will not help him win over new supporters.
That said, Farron's irksome.
Yeah, someone's got to get votes. If Labour drop votes, the Greens aren't credible (and are fishing in Corbyn's pool), the SNP can't stand in England/Wales, the Tories will have lost Cameron ...
I can see (under Corbyn), Con 40, Lab 26, LD 13, UKIP 10, Greens 4 or something like that in vote share. Something along the lines of Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 52, LD 20, UKIP 1, Greens 1 in seats. A revival to an extent for the Orange team, but nothing extreme.
Lord Prescott’s was the representative performance of quite the most dismal leadership contest imaginable. The process is a demand to be prohibited from office. It is quite evidently so awful that, no matter the outcome, the Labour party is going to have to do this again, only better. That moment may come soon, it may happen when David Cameron stands down or it may come after a defeat in 2020. It’s already only the timing that is worth worrying about.
A while ago someone wrote on Twitter, I think, after the General Election result and Russell Brand apparently saying he'd go to Syria, that there was a Conservative somewhere with a lamp and one wish left.
Mr. Cooke, might be a good situation for the Lib Dems. Farage's hokey-cokey will not help him win over new supporters.
That said, Farron's irksome.
Yeah, someone's got to get votes. If Labour drop votes, the Greens aren't credible (and are fishing in Corbyn's pool), the SNP can't stand in England/Wales, the Tories will have lost Cameron ...
I can see (under Corbyn), Con 40, Lab 26, LD 13, UKIP 10, Greens 4 or something like that in vote share. Something along the lines of Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 52, LD 20, UKIP 1, Greens 1 in seats. A revival to an extent for the Orange team, but nothing extreme.
I assume that total includes 7 Scottish Tories.... since we are long overdue a Tory surge north of the border!
I've been reading a long thread on Facebook today, featuring comments from otherwise sane and normal adults, who are all pro-Corbyn.
She was massacred too.
The world is going mad.
(Long-time lurker btw... I've been reading pb.com since it started but now feel I should make a comment or two as I think politics in the UK really is getting interesting! Never mind the rise of UKIP or the SNP - I sense it's the demise of Labour that's the biggie...)
You should see Cif, it's out Mailing The Mail at the moment. Anything about Corbyn has become madder than Cybernattery, any suggestion that he won't win in 2020 with a landslide is greeted with calls to
There are probably three reasons why things are going crazy, with each comprising a section of the Corbynites. Firstly there's the fact the hard left never thought they'd get a chance to take over the Labour Party, and they won't take kindly to anyone threatening to spoil their party. Having had to mumble and grumble either from within or in a variety of rag bag outfits, they're relishing giving those who stray from their creed a good kicking. They don't particularly care if Corbyn is totally unelectable - 21% of the vote is better than the sod all they currently get.
Then there's the young, I say this as someone who is basically still that myself but we can be very foolish politically because we lack the folk es of others. A 22-year-old will have known Tony Blair only as a perma-tanned 'war criminal' not an electoral juggernaut. They'll have spent the entire adolescent/adult life with a moderate Labour being unpopular and so see in Corbyn hope. Mentioning the fact that Labour has had these battles since at least the 1960s or that a milder version of Corbynism was tried and failed in the 1980s is met with a blank stare and 'but..'. See also how Occupy was 'going to change the world'.
Lastly, as you rightly point out very few people understand electoral mechanics and that the electorate doesn't think like their peer group, with most not giving a toss and then voting for whoever is most plausible, and that people aren't suddenly going to acclaim Corbyn because you like him. Therefore they're easily swayed by myths and canards - see also the Green surge.
Being a Labour member is terrifying atm.
That's so true. Corbyn is very appealing to lot of people, like Livingstone.
But, very unappealing to more.
A red Farage
A red Farage would be an interesting experiment, if a one man band populist can get 13% of the votes, what can a populist do at the helm of one of the two big parties?
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Labour currently are nowhere near close to mounting a challenge to the Tories.
True, but the situation reminds me of 2005 when Blair had led Labour to a third successive election victory despite Iraq.
People were saying in various forums, including PB, that the Tories were finished, that Labour could still beat them even when at their lowest ebb.
You can't blame Tories for being relieved that it didn't happen, doubly so when they have just gained a completely unexpected election victory.
Leadership is everything. A centrist leader who seems passively normal is gold dust. The problem for Labour is that they have to find one, and they don't have a good track record in doing so.
I have a feeling that the next Labour PM isn't even in Parliament yet....
Mr. Cooke, might be a good situation for the Lib Dems. Farage's hokey-cokey will not help him win over new supporters.
That said, Farron's irksome.
Yeah, someone's got to get votes. If Labour drop votes, the Greens aren't credible (and are fishing in Corbyn's pool), the SNP can't stand in England/Wales, the Tories will have lost Cameron ...
I can see (under Corbyn), Con 40, Lab 26, LD 13, UKIP 10, Greens 4 or something like that in vote share. Something along the lines of Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 52, LD 20, UKIP 1, Greens 1 in seats. A revival to an extent for the Orange team, but nothing extreme.
I assume that total includes 7 Scottish Tories.... since we are long overdue a Tory surge north of the border!
I thought the next Parliament will be only 600 seats
Mr. Cooke, might be a good situation for the Lib Dems. Farage's hokey-cokey will not help him win over new supporters.
That said, Farron's irksome.
Yeah, someone's got to get votes. If Labour drop votes, the Greens aren't credible (and are fishing in Corbyn's pool), the SNP can't stand in England/Wales, the Tories will have lost Cameron ...
I can see (under Corbyn), Con 40, Lab 26, LD 13, UKIP 10, Greens 4 or something like that in vote share. Something along the lines of Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 52, LD 20, UKIP 1, Greens 1 in seats. A revival to an extent for the Orange team, but nothing extreme.
I assume that total includes 7 Scottish Tories.... since we are long overdue a Tory surge north of the border!
I'm guessing on more anti-Nat tactical voting by the Unionist parties. That said, it'll still be highly limited on effectiveness due to the massive Nat leads, but I'm handwaving a couple of Blues, two or three Oranges and three or two Reds.
Mr. Disraeli, indeed, as recently as 2007 even chaps like Andrew Neil were wondering if the Conservatives might lose a snap election and then disintegrate.
And then came the Conservative conference and a 10pt Labour lead became a 10pt Conservative one.
I don't think we're in quite the same position due to length of time and the initial Coalition, but it's not entirely dissimilar.
Mr. Cooke, might be a good situation for the Lib Dems. Farage's hokey-cokey will not help him win over new supporters.
That said, Farron's irksome.
Yeah, someone's got to get votes. If Labour drop votes, the Greens aren't credible (and are fishing in Corbyn's pool), the SNP can't stand in England/Wales, the Tories will have lost Cameron ...
I can see (under Corbyn), Con 40, Lab 26, LD 13, UKIP 10, Greens 4 or something like that in vote share. Something along the lines of Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 52, LD 20, UKIP 1, Greens 1 in seats. A revival to an extent for the Orange team, but nothing extreme.
I assume that total includes 7 Scottish Tories.... since we are long overdue a Tory surge north of the border!
I thought the next Parliament will be only 600 seats
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Also a quick look at the past, points to Foot leading Labour to a landslide victory up till the point the SDP split off:
A while ago someone wrote on Twitter, I think, after the General Election result and Russell Brand apparently saying he'd go to Syria, that there was a Conservative somewhere with a lamp and one wish left.
We may be seeing the result of the final wish.
My genie used up my three wishes (Tory majority, LibDems given a kicking, Labour obliterated in Scotland). Since then he seems to be going freelance and throwing in a few freebies he thinks I might enjoy (Farage not getting in to Westminster, Balls losing his seat, Labour taking Corbyn to their breast....)
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Also a quick look at the past, points to Foot leading Labour to a landslide victory up till the point the SDP split off:
I am thinking of voting Kendall Cooper Corbyn Burnham
On the basis that Burnham would not be enough of a disaster to trigger a coup, similarly to how Ed had YouGov leads that helped him hang in there but ultimately hurt the party
But, according to the public polls cited in the header by OGH, Kendall would be more unelectable than Corbyn.
Nobody knows who Kendall is, might be part of it
But they do. Her "don't know" score in that poll is barely any different from the other candidates. The problem is that of the people who do know her, almost twice as many say she's not up to being PM as those who say she is.
There is not and never has been any evidence thta Liz would be the most electable candidate.
My father was a GP. His work patterns and current GP work patterns seem very different (I don't know where you are but in the areas I've lived, chances of a home visit are near to nil). I wonder how much of that is because 50% plus of medical students are female and the all hours working is not much of a draw (far more PT and jobshare as well). There's an assumption that men and women want the same thing out of work. Intellectually that's right for those training as med students but I wonder about, when people are in their 30s and 40s, there's the same enthusasism for the grind. If that's the case the there's a wider sustainability issue around the NHS.
I could be very wrong but I look at the area that I used to work in, private practice city law, and the ratio of men to women outside real estate and pensions (ie those areas with perceived solid 9 - 6).
There's as huge problem with GPs coming in the next few years as the demographics mean there will be a surge of retirements.
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Also a quick look at the past, points to Foot leading Labour to a landslide victory up till the point the SDP split off:
The past always is a two faced coin, which side the coin falls is determined by events.
Fascinating graph. What caused the decline in the SDP's performance after 82? It appears to drop off a cliff!
The Falklands war. Military victory against an invader is always popular (as long as it doesn't take too long before the troops go all bolshy as Churchill might have said in 1945).
I know, it's amazing that on the eve of the Limehouse declaration the Foot lead Labour party was beating the Thatcher lead Tory party by as much as 24 points in the polls.
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Also a quick look at the past, points to Foot leading Labour to a landslide victory up till the point the SDP split off:
The past always is a two faced coin, which side the coin falls is determined by events.
Fascinating graph. What caused the decline in the SDP's performance after 82? It appears to drop off a cliff!
The Falklands war. Military victory against an invader is always popular (as long as it doesn't take too long before the troops go all bolshy as Churchill might have said in 1945).
Labour currently are nowhere near close to mounting a challenge to the Tories.
True, but the situation reminds me of 2005 when Blair had led Labour to a third successive election victory despite Iraq.
People were saying in various forums, including PB, that the Tories were finished, that Labour could still beat them even when at their lowest ebb.
You can't blame Tories for being relieved that it didn't happen, doubly so when they have just gained a completely unexpected election victory.
Leadership is everything. A centrist leader who seems passively normal is gold dust. The problem for Labour is that they have to find one, and they don't have a good track record in doing so.
I have a feeling that the next Labour PM isn't even in Parliament yet....
Thanks for the response. I think Dan Jarvis may be Labour's next PM, although I think it's a decent bet that Labour's 'talented generation' has yet to emerge.
@MJW, I'm 21 and these same young people should also be aware Blair was the same guy who rode to power on a landslide in 1997, and prior to that Labour had been in opposition for 18 years. Young Labour members should be well aware of the wilderness years, they are just people who are so ideologically blind that they'll ignore realism when it stares them in the face. I'm not a fan of Blair for many reasons, but even I agree with @Roger that Blair is head and shoulders above all the party leaders right now, and at this stage Labour would probably be better off getting Blair back, then electing any of their leadership offerings.
Are you seriously suggesting that Labour - and the public at large - would want a war criminal back in charge of their affairs? The man was pure evil. Much as I despised Thatcher I would not wish on her the fate of Bin Laden - but Blair fully deserves it - including being dumped at sea.
My father was a GP. His work patterns and current GP work patterns seem very different (I don't know where you are but in the areas I've lived, chances of a home visit are near to nil). I wonder how much of that is because 50% plus of medical students are female and the all hours working is not much of a draw (far more PT and jobshare as well). There's an assumption that men and women want the same thing out of work. Intellectually that's right for those training as med students but I wonder about, when people are in their 30s and 40s, there's the same enthusasism for the grind. If that's the case the there's a wider sustainability issue around the NHS.
I could be very wrong but I look at the area that I used to work in, private practice city law, and the ratio of men to women outside real estate and pensions (ie those areas with perceived solid 9 - 6).
There's as huge problem with GPs coming in the next few years as the demographics mean there will be a surge of retirements.
Major recruitment problems too. Less than half our GP training places are filled in August for the East Midlands.
Jeremy Hunt has decided to rectify the problem by encouraging doctors to retire, emigrate or locum.
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Also a quick look at the past, points to Foot leading Labour to a landslide victory up till the point the SDP split off:
The past always is a two faced coin, which side the coin falls is determined by events.
Wow. I guess the difference now is that Cameron is seen as a credible, competent leader, and so are the Tories - whereas in 1981, both Thatcher and the Tories were very unpopular.
"During a town hall meeting here Thursday afternoon, Jeb Bush was put on the defensive about his comments Wednesday night about “phasing out” Medicare by an elderly woman who said she was worried about losing benefits she’s spent years paying for."
@MJW, I'm 21 and these same young people should also be aware Blair was the same guy who rode to power on a landslide in 1997, and prior to that Labour had been in opposition for 18 years. Young Labour members should be well aware of the wilderness years, they are just people who are so ideologically blind that they'll ignore realism when it stares them in the face. I'm not a fan of Blair for many reasons, but even I agree with @Roger that Blair is head and shoulders above all the party leaders right now, and at this stage Labour would probably be better off getting Blair back, then electing any of their leadership offerings.
Are you seriously suggesting that Labour - and the public at large - would want a war criminal back in charge of their affairs? The man was pure evil. Much as I despised Thatcher I would not wish on her the fate of Bin Laden - but Blair fully deserves it - including being dumped at sea.
The Labour party wouldn't want it, I don't even know whether the public would. I'm simply saying he, even despite Iraq is still a better leadership prospect for Labour than all the leadership candidates.
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Also a quick look at the past, points to Foot leading Labour to a landslide victory up till the point the SDP split off:
This is the second time we've heard of this 'demise of Labour' and it again begs the question - if Labour are at end, who is to replace them as the official opposition? UKIP control one council and are a world away of being an organised party with a divisive leader; the LDs have been reduced to a lump of 8 MPs with a leader that may be much more socially conservative than first thought (and how that plays with attracting the centre-left vote is still in question); the SNP are a Scottish party.
Also, considering the Tories are in their honeymoon and Labour are in chaos, 31% is a poor score for Labour but not really a terminally disastrous one.
But the Tories aren't in a honeymoon. They are in their second term in government. And have just announced fairly brutal cuts.
31 isn't bad for Labour, agreed. But it is also arguable that the full effect of their current spazz-out will only be revealed as the months roll by...
I think the polls are close to irrelevant at the moment. With the Labour Civil War, the public genuinely don't care, as was shown in 2010 when no one paid attention until the bloke who was supposed to win didn't. It all depends how it turns out. It currently looks unlikely but if whoever won decided to fight the left of the party and won (say in their conference speech) the whole thing would actually see them gain in stature as a possible PM. It's looking unlikely at the moment, but surely some advisors are looking to the future and saying "look I appreciate you can't take on this fight now due to AV, but if you don't do this after, you might as well book your May 2020 holiday in Ibiza now"?
On the Tory side, if the economy goes tits up then it spells trouble of epic proportions, as they'll lose their major asset (economic competence) and be doubly screwed as people being able to absorb the working welfare cuts is predicated on wages rising in a growing economy. Of course there'll also be no Dave opening the possibility of an unedifying leadership battle. Plus of course there's the little matter of Europe, and where on Earth we'll be by that point.
In addition of course there's the kilted unicorn in the room as to whether the SNP's act tires by then. It won't by 2016, but how long can you pin your woes on myths about the English? If it doesn't then it's very difficult to see Labour winning as polling anything below 40% will see the Tories trot out their favourite tune from 2015, especially with the new boundaries.
The man was pure evil. Much as I despised Thatcher I would not wish on her the fate of Bin Laden - but Blair fully deserves it - including being dumped at sea.
I thought that your sympathies were with the progressive left. Have you suddenly become in favour of capital punishment?
@MJW, I'm 21 and these same young people should also be aware Blair was the same guy who rode to power on a landslide in 1997, and prior to that Labour had been in opposition for 18 years. Young Labour members should be well aware of the wilderness years, they are just people who are so ideologically blind that they'll ignore realism when it stares them in the face. I'm not a fan of Blair for many reasons, but even I agree with @Roger that Blair is head and shoulders above all the party leaders right now, and at this stage Labour would probably be better off getting Blair back, then electing any of their leadership offerings.
Are you seriously suggesting that Labour - and the public at large - would want a war criminal back in charge of their affairs? The man was pure evil. Much as I despised Thatcher I would not wish on her the fate of Bin Laden - but Blair fully deserves it - including being dumped at sea.
The Labour party wouldn't want it, I don't even know whether the public would. I'm simply saying he, even despite Iraq is still a better leadership prospect for Labour than all the leadership candidates.
I agree that Blair was better at leadership than the other candidates combined. But it is not just about the leader: Blair succeeded because he built a competent, credible team around him (whatever we might think of them now): Mandelson, Campbell and others, with Prescott providing comedic relief.
Part of the reason why Labour failed in 2010 was that Ed failed to build such a team. Anyone voting in this leadership election who wants the best for Labour should ask themselves which candidate would be best placed to build a team to rival Blair's. If anything, it is more important than the candidate's personality and policies.
This scandal edges towards explosion. Like a frying pan, on a high heat, that suddenly starts to smoke...
Won't be long now, Tom Watson will surely be on the case
Someone out there in the establishment is wondering whether to push the button and bring the house down. Sean's right, this will involve senior politicians of all parties and a roulette game of other professions.
My father was a GP. His work patterns and current GP work patterns seem very different (I don't know where you are but in the areas I've lived, chances of a home visit are near to nil). I wonder how much of that is because 50% plus of medical students are female and the all hours working is not much of a draw (far more PT and jobshare as well). There's an assumption that men and women want the same thing out of work. Intellectually that's right for those training as med students but I wonder about, when people are in their 30s and 40s, there's the same enthusasism for the grind. If that's the case the there's a wider sustainability issue around the NHS.
I could be very wrong but I look at the area that I used to work in, private practice city law, and the ratio of men to women outside real estate and pensions (ie those areas with perceived solid 9 - 6).
There's as huge problem with GPs coming in the next few years as the demographics mean there will be a surge of retirements.
Major recruitment problems too. Less than half our GP training places are filled in August for the East Midlands.
Jeremy Hunt has decided to rectify the problem by encouraging doctors to retire, emigrate or locum.
The GP model is bust, a working system from fifty years ago that is not suited to the modern era. Changing or dismantling it will be key to improving the NHS.
I am thinking of voting Kendall Cooper Corbyn Burnham
On the basis that Burnham would not be enough of a disaster to trigger a coup, similarly to how Ed had YouGov leads that helped him hang in there but ultimately hurt the party
But, according to the public polls cited in the header by OGH, Kendall would be even more unelectable than Corbyn.
All the new entrants spending £3 in the hope of destabilizing Labour should vote for Kendall and then as on bonfire night - retire immediately
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
My father was a GP. His work patterns and current GP work patterns seem very different (I don't know where you are but in the areas I've lived, chances of a home visit are near to nil). I wonder how much of that is because 50% plus of medical students are female and the all hours working is not much of a draw (far more PT and jobshare as well). There's an assumption that men and women want the same thing out of work. Intellectually that's right for those training as med students but I wonder about, when people are in their 30s and 40s, there's the same enthusasism for the grind. If that's the case the there's a wider sustainability issue around the NHS.
I could be very wrong but I look at the area that I used to work in, private practice city law, and the ratio of men to women outside real estate and pensions (ie those areas with perceived solid 9 - 6).
There's as huge problem with GPs coming in the next few years as the demographics mean there will be a surge of retirements.
Major recruitment problems too. Less than half our GP training places are filled in August for the East Midlands.
Jeremy Hunt has decided to rectify the problem by encouraging doctors to retire, emigrate or locum.
The GP model is bust, a working system from fifty years ago that is not suited to the modern era. Changing or dismantling it will be key to improving the NHS.
It may have been a good idea to have a construction plan for the new system before commencing demolition.
This scandal edges towards explosion. Like a frying pan, on a high heat, that suddenly starts to smoke...
Won't be long now, Tom Watson will surely be on the case
Someone out there in the establishment is wondering whether to push the button and bring the house down. Sean's right, this will involve senior politicians of all parties and a roulette game of other professions.
Today we have seen a story about a cover-up under Margaret Thatcher and this story. It seems to be co-ordinated to be explosive and non-party political.
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
To some anyone to the right of those well known lefties, Mao and Stalin, are Tories. Welcome to the club JC.
I am thinking of voting Kendall Cooper Corbyn Burnham
On the basis that Burnham would not be enough of a disaster to trigger a coup, similarly to how Ed had YouGov leads that helped him hang in there but ultimately hurt the party
But, according to the public polls cited in the header by OGH, Kendall would be even more unelectable than Corbyn.
All the new entrants spending £3 in the hope of destabilizing Labour should vote for Kendall and then as on bonfire night - retire immediately
Noticed some Greens asking if they could join Labour to vote for Corbyn.
Sad to report there is a #greens4corbyn tag and some of the hard left greens are in it.
@MJW, I'm 21 and these same young people should also be aware Blair was the same guy who rode to power on a landslide in 1997, and prior to that Labour had been in opposition for 18 years. Young Labour members should be well aware of the wilderness years, they are just people who are so ideologically blind that they'll ignore realism when it stares them in the face. I'm not a fan of Blair for many reasons, but even I agree with @Roger that Blair is head and shoulders above all the party leaders right now, and at this stage Labour would probably be better off getting Blair back, then electing any of their leadership offerings.
I'm not a huge lover of Blair, although since 2008 have come to appreciate him more for obvious reasons. I do remember as a kid 1997-Iraq, and just how dominant he and Gordon Brown were politically. Now, there are many reasons not to want Blair back - not least because time moves on, people have learnt the Blair playbook off by heart. However it's utterly bizarre how even those who utterly condemn him for Iraq can't turn round and say "but the guy was fundamentally right about the nature of British electoral politics", you don't have to love him, but learn from him.
I think it's because those who lack direct experience, apart from those who listen to those who do, are more susceptible to the myths peddled - so those who don't remember just how popular New Labour once was can be convinced that "Oh but Labou would've won from the far-left," or that "Yeah but it was the same as the Tories."
In fact, bizarrely those accusing Blair and those who'd aim to emulate him (without Iraq, obvs) of being a dreadful obnoxious Tory are kicking off about precisely the things he introduced by eh, getting into power.
And if people think Yvette Cooper is a 'Tory', then well....there are words I'd use, expletives even to describe them. At this stage anyone who isn't hard-left to some of these people is a 'tory'. Maybe we should let them have their Corbyn leadership. These idiots can then be forced to see their own idiocy.
I've been saying for a while that is looking like the only way out for Labour. Let Corbyn's Comrades see the reality.
What's hilarious is how there are still some people who after seeing the evidence of the 1980s, still want to opt for this agenda. What's more amusing, is how many activists and members appear to not really care about Labour actually getting elected. They don't appear to understand that an electable, credible Labour party, is one that is an effective opposition by default. I think a large amount of them should quit this whole 'party-politics' thing, and join a pressure-group. They don't appear to be in the business of wanting to help change people's lives for the better.
But folks under about 45 will have no direct knowledge of the Militant debacle of the 80's. There's a whole generation plus that has to learn the lesson all over again.
I don't think you need to be over-45 to see that it resulted in complete disaster. As I said in a previous post, I'm 21 and a quick watch of Labour: The Wilderness (it's a documentary on YouTube) will tell anyone, no matter their age all they need to know about what a lurch to the hard-left does to Labour.
Also a quick look at the past, points to Foot leading Labour to a landslide victory up till the point the SDP split off:
The past always is a two faced coin, which side the coin falls is determined by events.
Fascinating graph. What caused the decline in the SDP's performance after 82? It appears to drop off a cliff!
It declined to a more reasonable level because it had gone up to an unrealistic and unsustainable level in the winter of 1981/82. It's the psephological equivalent of a "bubble".
Comments
But, very unappealing to more.
Who's the other guy with the glasses?
If we can learn the lessons of the Second Punic War, surely it's not too much to ask that people have some vague familiarity with events so recent as to count not so much as history as current events?
I am not sure that ratio would be the same today.
He reminds me of Robin Cook, is that him?
Not that the lupine Conservative approach is necessarily a good thing (it's just a different sort of beast).
If Labour drop votes, the Greens aren't credible (and are fishing in Corbyn's pool), the SNP can't stand in England/Wales, the Tories will have lost Cameron ...
I can see (under Corbyn), Con 40, Lab 26, LD 13, UKIP 10, Greens 4 or something like that in vote share.
Something along the lines of Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 52, LD 20, UKIP 1, Greens 1 in seats. A revival to an extent for the Orange team, but nothing extreme.
We may be seeing the result of the final wish.
Though I don't think that Corbyn is a populist.
People were saying in various forums, including PB, that the Tories were finished, that Labour could still beat them even when at their lowest ebb.
You can't blame Tories for being relieved that it didn't happen, doubly so when they have just gained a completely unexpected election victory.
Leadership is everything. A centrist leader who seems passively normal is gold dust. The problem for Labour is that they have to find one, and they don't have a good track record in doing so.
I have a feeling that the next Labour PM isn't even in Parliament yet....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1442618/Minister-attacks-Left-as-stuck-in-the-past.html
A couple of blasts from the past, some problems never seem to go away.
That said, it'll still be highly limited on effectiveness due to the massive Nat leads, but I'm handwaving a couple of Blues, two or three Oranges and three or two Reds.
And then came the Conservative conference and a 10pt Labour lead became a 10pt Conservative one.
I don't think we're in quite the same position due to length of time and the initial Coalition, but it's not entirely dissimilar.
I'll get my coat....
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
The past always is a two faced coin, which side the coin falls is determined by events.
Right?
Well almost right, it's a counter attack:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blair-government-briefed-police-paedophile-6123122#
There is not and never has been any evidence thta Liz would be the most electable candidate.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blair-government-briefed-police-paedophile-6123122#
Military victory against an invader is always popular (as long as it doesn't take too long before the troops go all bolshy as Churchill might have said in 1945).
I know, it's amazing that on the eve of the Limehouse declaration the Foot lead Labour party was beating the Thatcher lead Tory party by as much as 24 points in the polls.
US intelligence veterans request the release the so far repressed report on the MH 17 shoot down.
Jeremy Hunt has decided to rectify the problem by encouraging doctors to retire, emigrate or locum.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jeb-bush-defends-medicare-benefits-phase-out-comment-entitlement-120546.html#ixzz3gkRru6v0
"During a town hall meeting here Thursday afternoon, Jeb Bush was put on the defensive about his comments Wednesday night about “phasing out” Medicare by an elderly woman who said she was worried about losing benefits she’s spent years paying for."
Unless there is some breaking news, goodnight.
On the Tory side, if the economy goes tits up then it spells trouble of epic proportions, as they'll lose their major asset (economic competence) and be doubly screwed as people being able to absorb the working welfare cuts is predicated on wages rising in a growing economy. Of course there'll also be no Dave opening the possibility of an unedifying leadership battle. Plus of course there's the little matter of Europe, and where on Earth we'll be by that point.
In addition of course there's the kilted unicorn in the room as to whether the SNP's act tires by then. It won't by 2016, but how long can you pin your woes on myths about the English? If it doesn't then it's very difficult to see Labour winning as polling anything below 40% will see the Tories trot out their favourite tune from 2015, especially with the new boundaries.
Part of the reason why Labour failed in 2010 was that Ed failed to build such a team. Anyone voting in this leadership election who wants the best for Labour should ask themselves which candidate would be best placed to build a team to rival Blair's. If anything, it is more important than the candidate's personality and policies.
Sad to report there is a #greens4corbyn tag and some of the hard left greens are in it.
New thread
I think it's because those who lack direct experience, apart from those who listen to those who do, are more susceptible to the myths peddled - so those who don't remember just how popular New Labour once was can be convinced that "Oh but Labou would've won from the far-left," or that "Yeah but it was the same as the Tories."
In fact, bizarrely those accusing Blair and those who'd aim to emulate him (without Iraq, obvs) of being a dreadful obnoxious Tory are kicking off about precisely the things he introduced by eh, getting into power.