I remember reading that Harman had several votes in the previous leadership contest based on her position in the party, national executive, union and other affiliations. Basically it took several voters to overturn that so what's the point in engagement in that circumstance.
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?
They have little interest in Labour , who in Scotland cares when they have 1 MP and a bunch of donkeys in Holyrood.
Indeed, but while Corbyn is the Tories favourite candidate, he is the SNP's least favoured candidate
Not if the decision in Scotland is based more on the perception of their ability to govern competently. One key reason SLAB lost to the SNP was because of that. Corbyn makes that perception worse.
From the people I know who switched from SLAB to the SNP, most of these folks changed allegiance in Holyrood 2011 and neither SLAB or the "political commentators" noticed. More support did leak from SLAB to the SNP in the run up to Indyref, more due to SLAB's unionist stance than being seen to work with the Tories.
In terms of the run up to GE2015 the SNP message was quite simple - vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected. This shored up the 2011, Indyref switchers and attracted a few more supporters from SLAB. I don't think many were attracted to the SNP because they are deemed to be more left wing than SLAB, who to be honest as is becoming increasingly clear don't know where they stand in the political spectrum.
I think SLAB's left wing core is pretty much intact, the working men and social clubs - older always voted Labour crew. If you want something more left wing the Greens, SSP and Solidarity are options. I don't think it will make a difference to SLAB's fortunes in 2016 which ever of the 4 musketeers is lucky enough to win the already poisoned chalice of Labour leader.
Corbyn has double the support in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov. The Greens, SSP and Solidarity have little support anyway, in both 2011 and 2015 the SNP positioned themselves to the left of Labour, which was why they won Glasgow and so much of the Central belt, SLAB could certainly win back much of the lost support in that region under Corbyn
Reflects SLAB's core left wing trade unionist folks being more taken with Corbyn than the Metropolitan elite Oxbridge crew. I think you're analysis of why the SNP swept Glasgow and the Central belt (where I live) isn't consistent with us on the ground, Corbyn isn't the man to recover lost SLAB support - neither are the other 3. Somebody like Dan Jarvis - now that could get interesting.
"Concerns about a girl repeatedly abused by a gang of men in Buckinghamshire were raised by a charity several years before the perpetrators were arrested, it has emerged. Barnardo's told the BBC it had worked with the ring's two victims in 2008 and referred the case of one to the local authority and other relevant agencies. The charity's Michelle Lee-Izu said "insufficient action" was taken."
What most alarms me about this is how the perpetrators could find 60 men in the local area to get involved. If I told two or three people that I had a 12 year old I was having sex with and asked if they wanted to get involved, then the police would be at my door within hours. It's not like they're using the deep web to find people who share their sick desires. They're just getting all the local taxi drivers or takeaway workers involved.
I remember reading that Harman had several votes in the previous leadership contest based on her position in the party, national executive, union and other affiliations. Basically it took several voters to overturn that so what's the point in engagement in that circumstance.
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
It never made any sense to think the unions would have less say under this new system. The main effect of it was simply to massively downweight the MPs' influence on the result, and as you say allowing non-members to get involved, something else which ironically enough was pushed by the Blairites who thought that it would get more "moderate" Labour supporters enrolled (they didn't seem to realise that practically noone is going to be excited enough by mushy centrist policies to sign up).
I remember reading that Harman had several votes in the previous leadership contest based on her position in the party, national executive, union and other affiliations. Basically it took several voters to overturn that so what's the point in engagement in that circumstance.
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
New Labour was tolerated because for 20 years it was the winning formula, but it was never loved by the activists with its trail of spindictors, SPADs and parachuting of favoured ones into safe seats. It always was about entryism. Once it lost its reason to exist there was bound to be a backlash. We are seeing that with the Corbynite insurrection. The reason he is feared by the placemen (and women) is not just the politics, but more so because of the purge that will follow. The other 3 were all all SPADs dropped into safe seats, and that whole culture is going to end.
The voters did in the sellouts in the LibDems, the activists will do the same for Labour. When their star wanes, I expect the same for the Cameroons.
'From the people I know who switched from SLAB to the SNP, most of these folks changed allegiance in Holyrood 2011 and neither SLAB or the "political commentators" noticed. More support did leak from SLAB to the SNP in the run up to Indyref, more due to SLAB's unionist stance than being seen to work with the Tories.
In terms of the run up to GE2015 the SNP message was quite simple - vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected. This shored up the 2011, Indyref switchers and attracted a few more supporters from SLAB. I don't think many were attracted to the SNP because they are deemed to be more left wing than SLAB, who to be honest as is becoming increasingly clear don't know where they stand in the political spectrum.
I think SLAB's left wing core is pretty much intact, the working men and social clubs - older always voted Labour crew. If you want something more left wing the Greens, SSP and Solidarity are options. I don't think it will make a difference to SLAB's fortunes in 2016 which ever of the 4 musketeers is lucky enough to win the already poisoned chalice of Labour leader.
Corbyn has double the support in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov. The Greens, SSP and Solidarity have little support anyway, in both 2011 and 2015 the SNP positioned themselves to the left of Labour, which was why they won Glasgow and so much of the Central belt, SLAB could certainly win back much of the lost support in that region under Corbyn
Reflects SLAB's core left wing trade unionist folks being more taken with Corbyn than the Metropolitan elite Oxbridge crew. I think you're analysis of why the SNP swept Glasgow and the Central belt (where I live) isn't consistent with us on the ground, Corbyn isn't the man to recover lost SLAB support - neither are the other 3. Somebody like Dan Jarvis - now that could get interesting. '
Dan Jarvis would do well in the north and Midlands, and indeed in much of the South too, he is not the candidate to win back Red Scotland. Many of those now voting SNP in the central belt and Glasgow voted Labour even in 1983, they are the true socialist believers and a Corbyn led Labour would certainly be more likely to regain their support. The SNP would still hold onto most of Edinburgh and Aberdeen, the Highlands and Islands and its seats in the borders under a Corbyn led Labour as those areas are more moderate
I remember reading that Harman had several votes in the previous leadership contest based on her position in the party, national executive, union and other affiliations. Basically it took several voters to overturn that so what's the point in engagement in that circumstance.
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
It seems that Labour went back to the Kinnock years under Ed Miliband, a Corbyn leadership would take them back to the Foot years
I remember reading that Harman had several votes in the previous leadership contest based on her position in the party, national executive, union and other affiliations. Basically it took several voters to overturn that so what's the point in engagement in that circumstance.
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
It seems that Labour went back to the Kinnock years under Ed Miliband, a Corbyn leadership would take them back to the Foot years
If Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader, the last seven Labour leaders will form a perfect parabola.
I remember reading that Harman had several votes in the previous leadership contest based on her position in the party, national executive, union and other affiliations. Basically it took several voters to overturn that so what's the point in engagement in that circumstance.
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
It seems that Labour went back to the Kinnock years under Ed Miliband, a Corbyn leadership would take them back to the Foot years
If Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader, the last seven Labour leaders will form a perfect parabola.
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
The Labour Party that's about two elect two blokes and has never had an elected woman leader, that Labour Party ?
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
Might be good to pick a scientist or a non SPAD for a change.
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
I thought she won three elections?
For the Conservative leadership?
Nope, general elections. I'm suprised a frequent poster on a site such as this doesn't know this already.
Tory party hate quotas and tokenism. Except when they use their past choice of a woman as a token that they've filled their quota and therefore don't need to be diverse any more.
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
I thought she won three elections?
For the Conservative leadership?
Nope, general elections. I'm suprised a frequent poster on a site such as this doesn't know this already.
I thought we were talking about choice of candidates, like Tessa was... You chose a woman once not three times... Nice try
Tory party hate quotas and tokenism. Except when they use their past choice of a woman as a token that they've filled their quota and therefore don't need to be diverse any more.
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
I thought she won three elections?
For the Conservative leadership?
Technically she won three Tory leadership elections.
In 1975, 1989 and the first round of the 1990 leadership contest.
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
I thought she won three elections?
For the Conservative leadership?
Nope, general elections. I'm suprised a frequent poster on a site such as this doesn't know this already.
I thought we were talking about choice of candidates, like Tessa was... You chose a woman once not three times... Nice try
Yes, but she didn't go back to the kitchen after one term, did she?
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
I thought she won three elections?
For the Conservative leadership?
Technically she won three Tory leadership elections.
In 1975, 1989 and the first round of the 1990 leadership contest.
Interesting
Have you paid your three quid to vote against women in the Labour contest?
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Yep, did it once, now they can go back in the kitchen, right?
I thought she won three elections?
For the Conservative leadership?
Technically she won three Tory leadership elections.
In 1975, 1989 and the first round of the 1990 leadership contest.
Interesting
Have you paid your three quid to vote against women in the Labour contest?
No. I'm not partaking in the Labour leadership election.
If I were, my first choice would be a woman, Liz Kendall.
Purely because I backed and tipped her at 50/1 and 20/1, which would make me unbearably smug were she to win
Digging a bit deeper into the ONS data Anti-frank posted last night, the ONS actually publish a table of the top 28 cities each city is called a "Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)" - I think somebody at the ONS must have been pissed when they came up with this acronym - anyway here's the data:
On closer inspection the London GVA per head number of £40.215 for 2013 is broken down into 5 London NUTS areas - 2008-13:
Inner London - West 120,436 118,614 125,136 128,833 134,538 135,888 Inner London - East 32,976 32,851 33,369 36,823 36,974 38,921 Outer London - E & NE 13,929 13,169 13,740 14,071 14,445 14,731 Outer London - South 17,777 17,118 17,226 17,267 17,458 18,045 Outer London - W & NW 24,991 22,926 23,495 24,745 24,727 25,713
For any stats nerds out there here is the UK regional breakout:
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
The quality of the candidate is not important to Labour, it is the colour of your skin, gender and sexuality that are important.
Tory party hate quotas and tokenism. Except when they use their past choice of a woman as a token that they've filled their quota and therefore don't need to be diverse any more.
Calm down, dear!
Lol - now who was it who said that - oh yeah, David Cameron who just won an election.
The man with Juncker is Viktor Orban the PM of Hungary. Juncker has referred to him as a dictator and also slapped him. His behvaiour is quite erratic at times but not particularly suprising from a man who drinks cognac at breakfast.
Tory party hate quotas and tokenism. Except when they use their past choice of a woman as a token that they've filled their quota and therefore don't need to be diverse any more.
Calm down, dear!
Lol - now who was it who said that - oh yeah, David Cameron who just won an election.
Once Jeremy helps us take back the party from the unworthy usurpers, Labour will win by a landslide. The nation is waiting for a clear socialist message
In terms of the run up to GE2015 the SNP message was quite simple - vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected.
It was simple
And complete and utter bollocks
Under Labour governments, Scotsmen held the positions of Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary, and the list goes on
And all of them have been replaced by the Futile 56, who hold no positions of influence whatsoever
The best moment of the Parliament so far was the additional debate on EVEL, secured not by the Futile 56, but by the man they so desperately want to get sacked!!
Tory party hate quotas and tokenism. Except when they use their past choice of a woman as a token that they've filled their quota and therefore don't need to be diverse any more.
Calm down, dear!
Lol - now who was it who said that - oh yeah, David Cameron who just won an election.
Once Jeremy helps us take back the party from the unworthy usurpers, Labour will win by a landslide. The nation is waiting for a clear socialist message
Ah I see - you're talking about the Greek nation - gotcha
I suspect that Corbyn may get a short term boost for the party but it would only be a matter of time before he came up with some cranky idea that blew it all out of the water.
Tory party hate quotas and tokenism. Except when they use their past choice of a woman as a token that they've filled their quota and therefore don't need to be diverse any more.
Calm down, dear!
Lol - now who was it who said that - oh yeah, David Cameron who just won an election.
Once Jeremy helps us take back the party from the unworthy usurpers, Labour will win by a landslide. The nation is waiting for a clear socialist message
Ah I see - you're talking about the Greek nation - gotcha
I was just kidding but the sad part is a large section of the Labour party truly believes that Unspoofable
The man with Juncker is Viktor Orban the PM of Hungary. Juncker has referred to him as a dictator and also slapped him. His behvaiour is quite erratic at times but not particularly suprising from a man who drinks cognac at breakfast.
Thanks! Not a member of the Juncker Fan Club then!
If that's what happening then Harman should suspend activities. Ironically, this may not even be a 'labour thing' fuelling the Corbyn rise if that's correct - but the hard-left outside Labour looking for a political home. In which case, they can go do one. Would explain the increase in crazies on CIF seemingly invested in Labour.
If that's what happening then Harman should suspend activities. Ironically, this may not even be a 'labour thing' fuelling the Corbyn rise if that's correct - but the hard-left outside Labour looking for a political home. In which case, they can go do one. Would explain the increase in crazies on CIF seemingly invested in Labour.
You cannot run an open membership/voting system and then complain when the 'wrong sort' of people join.
Any attempt to interfere with the clearly defined process at this stage looks like panic and one from which the party could not recover if they acted on it.
Tessa Jowell @TessaJowell 2h2 hours ago Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
The Labour Party that's about two elect two blokes and has never had an elected woman leader, that Labour Party ?
I maybe wrong but the 4 Tory candidates for Mayor are 3 Jews and a Muslim. One gay. Clearly the loonies lefties want one of everything but I add that up to be 48 people on shortlist if you multiply white/black/brown and man/women/ able/disabled / Christian/non Christian and gay/straight.
Greenhalgh and Kammal are the outstanding candidates. Don't see the Zac thing; ain't done nuffink in politics yet.
Suspend an internal Labour nomination contest over allegations of infiltration from the Left? What could possibly go wrong? #falkirk
My goodness it's all getting a nit like Eastenders on acid! However, one can't help feeling that the party is reaping it's just reward from the idiocy of the Miliband years. I also don't believe that there is a huge potential SNP - Labour switch if Corbyn wins. The truth is the party doesn't understand Scotland and they have probably lost it for good. The only puzzle left about the Scots is that the polls seem resolutely split 55/45 for No to independence. That must sh**e for the Nats to contemplate.
If that's what happening then Harman should suspend activities. Ironically, this may not even be a 'labour thing' fuelling the Corbyn rise if that's correct - but the hard-left outside Labour looking for a political home. In which case, they can go do one. Would explain the increase in crazies on CIF seemingly invested in Labour.
You cannot run an open membership/voting system and then complain when the 'wrong sort' of people join.
Any attempt to interfere with the clearly defined process at this stage looks like panic and one from which the party could not recover if they acted on it.
They made their bed - they now have to lie on it.
I don't really see how they couldn't recover from it. If anything, it may be a good thing.
Allowing people to spend 3 quid to vote in the election was always a stupid idea. Not surprised it has backfired so spectacularly. To vote in a leadership election one ought to already be a member. She won't do anything of course. It's far too late.
If that's what happening then Harman should suspend activities. Ironically, this may not even be a 'labour thing' fuelling the Corbyn rise if that's correct - but the hard-left outside Labour looking for a political home. In which case, they can go do one. Would explain the increase in crazies on CIF seemingly invested in Labour.
You cannot run an open membership/voting system and then complain when the 'wrong sort' of people join.
Any attempt to interfere with the clearly defined process at this stage looks like panic and one from which the party could not recover if they acted on it.
They made their bed - they now have to lie on it.
I don't really see how they couldn't recover from it. If anything, it may be a good thing.
You cannot be a major political party who sets out an election process and then changes it when it doesn't suit you. It sends the worst possible message about control freakery and a lack of trust in democracy.
They set up an open election process where anyone could join for £3 and have a vote.
It is too late the change that now - just because people are joining who might not vote for a certain candidate. The candidate who inspires enough people to join and vote deserves to win. Not to have a victory taken away because of it being the 'wrong sort' of new members.
Labour are finished as a political force if they attempt to rig this. Utterly discredited and heading for oblivion
That said, who thought up this join £3 pound idea? Like your average joe will give a fig about the Labour leadership contest - it was always going to attract politically vested people.
If that's what happening then Harman should suspend activities. Ironically, this may not even be a 'labour thing' fuelling the Corbyn rise if that's correct - but the hard-left outside Labour looking for a political home. In which case, they can go do one. Would explain the increase in crazies on CIF seemingly invested in Labour.
You cannot run an open membership/voting system and then complain when the 'wrong sort' of people join.
Any attempt to interfere with the clearly defined process at this stage looks like panic and one from which the party could not recover if they acted on it.
They made their bed - they now have to lie on it.
I don't really see how they couldn't recover from it. If anything, it may be a good thing.
The problem is that this "organisation" wants the British people to hand it the reins of government in 2020 - I mean, joking aside, only the great john McEnroe has an appropriate response.
Some MPs are already resigned to defeat in 2020, whoever becomes leader, and fear that a Corbyn victory would bring the electoral oblivion that Labour had flirted with under Foot.
“If Andy [Burnham] wins,” said one Labour frontbencher, “we will just do what we can to make sure the election defeat is not as bad as it would be under Corbyn — because it would destroy the party, we would be a laughing stock.”
If that's what happening then Harman should suspend activities. Ironically, this may not even be a 'labour thing' fuelling the Corbyn rise if that's correct - but the hard-left outside Labour looking for a political home. In which case, they can go do one. Would explain the increase in crazies on CIF seemingly invested in Labour.
You cannot run an open membership/voting system and then complain when the 'wrong sort' of people join.
Any attempt to interfere with the clearly defined process at this stage looks like panic and one from which the party could not recover if they acted on it.
They made their bed - they now have to lie on it.
I don't really see how they couldn't recover from it. If anything, it may be a good thing.
You cannot be a major political party who sets out an election process and then changes it when it doesn't suit you. It sends the worst possible message about control freakery and a lack of trust in democracy.
They set up an open election process where anyone could join for £3 and have a vote.
It is too late the change that now - just because people are joining who might not vote for a certain candidate. The candidate who inspires enough people to join and vote deserves to win. Not to have a victory taken away because of it being the 'wrong sort' of new members.
Labour are finished as a political force if they attempt to rig this. Utterly discredited and heading for oblivion
If anything, it's the 'hard left attempting to rig the contest'. You still haven't explained why Labour 'will never recover'. I doubt it sends a bad message when the hard-left are trying to infiltrate you - if that's the case it's perfectly understandable as to why you'd want to stop outside groups such as the communist party interfering with your electoral process. The contest is already discredited as a result of that, and democracy is already undermined.
These people are hardly 'inspired' to join - they see an opportunity to turn Labour into some hard-left force, and that's what they are attempting to do.
It's a bit silly to talk about infiltration. People whose natural home is the labour party are enthused at the prospect of a leader who might actually reflect their views.
But I'm sure the dozens of Communist party members will swing the ballot
Some MPs are already resigned to defeat in 2020, whoever becomes leader, and fear that a Corbyn victory would bring the electoral oblivion that Labour had flirted with under Foot.
“If Andy [Burnham] wins,” said one Labour frontbencher, “we will just do what we can to make sure the election defeat is not as bad as it would be under Corbyn — because it would destroy the party, we would be a laughing stock.”
Not surprised. The NS already revealed that in an article weeks ago.
I don't really see how they couldn't recover from it
If anything, it's the 'hard left attempting to rig the contest'. You still haven't explained why Labour 'will never recover'. I doubt it sends a bad message when the hard-left are trying to infiltrate you - if that's the case it's perfectly understandable as to why you'd want to stop outside groups such as the communist party interfering with your electoral process. The contest is already discredited as a result of that, and democracy is already undermined.
These people are hardly 'inspired' to join - they see an opportunity to turn Labour into some hard-left force, and that's what they are attempting to do.
If you run an open vote, you run an open vote. You cannot vet every member to make sure they are the right sort of person. They put their safeguards in place - which they tightened after the 'Tories for Corbyn' campaign started. They made the rules. They have to live with those rules - not change them halfway through.
And if by 'hard left' you mean those who believe Labour should be a party that uses Socialism as the guide for their politics, then Corbyn is inspiring people to join and vote. I fundamentally disagree with him and what he stands for - but he does seem to be reaching out in an incredible way. Many of my left-leaning friends have come out for Corbyn - and not all from the hard left of the party - just people who want an end to the weakening of what they see as core Labour values.
If you are a democratic party (and having an open vote shows that you want to be democratic) you have to take the risk that the voters will take things in a direction you didn't expect.
If you panic and try to block the will of members, you cause a major rupture between the membership and the leadership - and a breakdown in trust and reputation.
That is why giving in to this panic would be fatal.
Some MPs are already resigned to defeat in 2020, whoever becomes leader, and fear that a Corbyn victory would bring the electoral oblivion that Labour had flirted with under Foot.
“If Andy [Burnham] wins,” said one Labour frontbencher, “we will just do what we can to make sure the election defeat is not as bad as it would be under Corbyn — because it would destroy the party, we would be a laughing stock.”
I really do not think an Osborne win in 2020 is guaranteed, especially after 10 years of Tory government
I don't really see how they couldn't recover from it
If anything, it's the 'hard left attempting to rig the contest'. You still haven't explained why Labour 'will never recover'. I doubt it sends a bad message when the hard-left are trying to infiltrate you - if that's the case it's perfectly understandable as to why you'd want to stop outside groups such as the communist party interfering with your electoral process. The contest is already discredited as a result of that, and democracy is already undermined.
These people are hardly 'inspired' to join - they see an opportunity to turn Labour into some hard-left force, and that's what they are attempting to do.
If you run an open vote, you run an open vote. You cannot vet every member to make sure they are the right sort of person. They put their safeguards in place - which they tightened after the 'Tories for Corbyn' campaign started. They made the rules. They have to live with those rules - not change them halfway through.
And if by 'hard left' you mean those who believe Labour should be a party that uses Socialism as the guide for their politics, then Corbyn is inspiring people to join and vote. I fundamentally disagree with him and what he stands for - but he does seem to be reaching out in an incredible way. Many of my left-leaning friends have come out for Corbyn - and not all from the hard left of the party - just people who want an end to the weakening of what they see as core Labour values.
If you are a democratic party (and having an open vote shows that you want to be democratic) you have to take the risk that the voters will take things in a direction you didn't expect.
If you panic and try to block the will of members, you cause a major rupture between the membership and the leadership - and a breakdown in trust and reputation.
That is why giving in to this panic would be fatal.
Nonsense of course. The Conservative party would do whatever it took to prevent a vote being subverted in this way. Entirely acceptable for Labour to do the same if it turns out that this is happening.
Some MPs are already resigned to defeat in 2020, whoever becomes leader, and fear that a Corbyn victory would bring the electoral oblivion that Labour had flirted with under Foot.
“If Andy [Burnham] wins,” said one Labour frontbencher, “we will just do what we can to make sure the election defeat is not as bad as it would be under Corbyn — because it would destroy the party, we would be a laughing stock.”
I really do not think an Osborne win in 2020 is guaranteed, especially after 10 years of Tory government
So of the candidates running Cooper does worst, Burnham and Corbyn joint best, Blair and Harman worse than all of them. David Miliband does best of all, so presumably he can remain as the Prince across the water until Labour has sufficiently grovelled to request his return if facing yet another defeat!
Labour won't die unless there is something to replace them. Tories won't get more than 45% of vote. Greens are mental, Libs will take a few years (but by election results in locals have been very good since GE), SNP and UKIP are single issue. Tories against Blair got down to about 170 seats. They will never get worse unless leader was a serial killer. Labout will get 170 seats too, whatever happens unless a truly great leader led one of the other parties. A Salmond or Thatcher or Blair. Corbyn will ignite the lefties. He won't do really badly.
The reality is when push comes to shove it is likely that Corbyn and Kendell will pull out to make it a two horse race between Andy and Yvette, with a Burnham victory inevitable (Burnham will give concessions to Corbyn, and Yvette to Kendell)
There is no conceivable way that Corbyn would want/ or could run a shadow cabinet. Look at Tsipasris- he marched them to the top of the hill and then... At the end of the day, the pressure is too much for proper lefties.
You cannot compare Corbyn to IDS- Corbyn has operated as a splinter, oppositional cell in the Labour party for ever. It is just an impossibility to think that he could even begin to run some kind of Labour team with the backing of the MP's. There are maybe 15 MP's at most that are ideologically allied with him.
Unlike Ed, who I just think never thought through what the implications could be of actually winning (Ed was too caught up in the moment), Corbyn will be more reflective.
I like Corbyn very much. But at the end of the day, the guy is principled. He is not a psychopath, and he is not an ambitious, narcissist (like Ed Miliband).
Anyway, I'll remind you all of this when it all comes to fruition.
I don't really see how they couldn't recover from it
If anything, it's the 'hard left attempting to rig the contest'. You still haven't explained why Labour 'will never recover'. I doubt it sends a bad message when the hard-left are trying to infiltrate you - if that's the case it's perfectly understandable as to why you'd want to stop outside groups such as the communist party interfering with your electoral process. The contest is already discredited as a result of that, and democracy is already undermined.
These people are hardly 'inspired' to join - they see an opportunity to turn Labour into some hard-left force, and that's what they are attempting to do.
If you run an open vote, you run an open vote. You cannot vet every member to make sure they are the right sort of person. They put their safeguards in place - which they tightened after the 'Tories for Corbyn' campaign started. They made the rules. They have to live with those rules - not change them halfway through.
And if by 'hard left' you mean those who believe Labour should be a party that uses Socialism as the guide for their politics, then Corbyn is inspiring people to join and vote. I fundamentally disagree with him and what he stands for - but he does seem to be reaching out in an incredible way. Many of my left-leaning friends have come out for Corbyn - and not all from the hard left of the party - just people who want an end to the weakening of what they see as core Labour values.
If you are a democratic party (and having an open vote shows that you want to be democratic) you have to take the risk that the voters will take things in a direction you didn't expect.
If you panic and try to block the will of members, you cause a major rupture between the membership and the leadership - and a breakdown in trust and reputation.
That is why giving in to this panic would be fatal.
As said before, an open vote becomes a farce if groups try to interfere with the democratic process. It's not about individual members - it's group whole groups who want to distort the contests. I mean by 'hard-left' groups such as the communist party. I don't believe the Labour party should be a communist party, nor do I ever recall reading Labour, even at its most left wing a party that officially believed in communism.
There has already been a gulf between the membership and the leadership - the membership wants ideological leftist purity 90% of the time, and the leadership wants to win elections.
Sorry I missed the previous thread. Glad to see OGH write a piece on what I've been saying for a little while now. I agree that Hillary is nowhere near 83%. I'd put it somewhere north of 50%, but not much. Maybe 55-60%, to be updated as events unfold.
Re The Donald, this is a great piece on commentators' predictions on how it will all end. What comes out clearly is that the commentators are not saying what they really think, just pushing their own party line. All the Dems talk up the seriousness and durability of Trump, all the Republicans either talk it down or say they don't know. But nevertheless, it is worth a read as there are, amongst all the lying, some truths.
A friend of mine has likened Trump to Berlusconi - a rich bigot who, in operating without a filter, says a lot of things others would like to say (but probably don't in a PC world) and so gains respect that is not due for 'getting it' and understanding normal people's viewpoints. He figures we underestimate Trump at our peril. I am not sure anyone is underestimating him, just wondering how to shoot him down without playing into his game.
Nonsense of course. The Conservative party would do whatever it took to prevent a vote being subverted in this way. Entirely acceptable for Labour to do the same if it turns out that this is happening.
Sorry but Labour cannot change the rules half way through the process.
The evidence for this alleged infiltration is hardly convincing. And no vetting process can be devised to weed out the undesirables. Even if someone has joined from the Communist Party or SWP, are they going to have to face a tribunal (in the style of the McCarthy era in the US) to see whether they are real Reds under the bed? Or just people that feel Corbyn as Labour leader would provide them with a real home in the Labour party.
How do you prove that someone is the right sort of Socialist to be allowed into the Labour party?
You can't.
They set up these new rules. They created this monster. The MPs nominated Corbyn. Labour has to live with this.
For those following the US campaign and - judging from what I read on here - tend to follow mainly the polls and not follow the day to day details and news of the campaign, let me draw your attention to something.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
Up until now, from Rose Law Firm billings, Whitewater, Benghazi, the foundation, email - there are plenty more - some people (depending on how pink your spectacles are) have said it is a right wing witch hunt, or as the Clintons themselves have said for 25 years "a vast right wing conspiracy".
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.
Some MPs are already resigned to defeat in 2020, whoever becomes leader, and fear that a Corbyn victory would bring the electoral oblivion that Labour had flirted with under Foot.
“If Andy [Burnham] wins,” said one Labour frontbencher, “we will just do what we can to make sure the election defeat is not as bad as it would be under Corbyn — because it would destroy the party, we would be a laughing stock.”
I really do not think an Osborne win in 2020 is guaranteed, especially after 10 years of Tory government
CORBYN
Indeed, though tomorrow's poll rating for Corbyn in the ST is not that bad, he actually has more voters saying they would vote for Corbyn than the other 3, even if he has even more saying they would not
Comments
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
The voters did in the sellouts in the LibDems, the activists will do the same for Labour. When their star wanes, I expect the same for the Cameroons.
'From the people I know who switched from SLAB to the SNP, most of these folks changed allegiance in Holyrood 2011 and neither SLAB or the "political commentators" noticed. More support did leak from SLAB to the SNP in the run up to Indyref, more due to SLAB's unionist stance than being seen to work with the Tories.
In terms of the run up to GE2015 the SNP message was quite simple - vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected. This shored up the 2011, Indyref switchers and attracted a few more supporters from SLAB. I don't think many were attracted to the SNP because they are deemed to be more left wing than SLAB, who to be honest as is becoming increasingly clear don't know where they stand in the political spectrum.
I think SLAB's left wing core is pretty much intact, the working men and social clubs - older always voted Labour crew. If you want something more left wing the Greens, SSP and Solidarity are options. I don't think it will make a difference to SLAB's fortunes in 2016 which ever of the 4 musketeers is lucky enough to win the already poisoned chalice of Labour leader.
Corbyn has double the support in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov. The Greens, SSP and Solidarity have little support anyway, in both 2011 and 2015 the SNP positioned themselves to the left of Labour, which was why they won Glasgow and so much of the Central belt, SLAB could certainly win back much of the lost support in that region under Corbyn
Reflects SLAB's core left wing trade unionist folks being more taken with Corbyn than the Metropolitan elite Oxbridge crew. I think you're analysis of why the SNP swept Glasgow and the Central belt (where I live) isn't consistent with us on the ground, Corbyn isn't the man to recover lost SLAB support - neither are the other 3. Somebody like Dan Jarvis - now that could get interesting. '
Dan Jarvis would do well in the north and Midlands, and indeed in much of the South too, he is not the candidate to win back Red Scotland. Many of those now voting SNP in the central belt and Glasgow voted Labour even in 1983, they are the true socialist believers and a Corbyn led Labour would certainly be more likely to regain their support. The SNP would still hold onto most of Edinburgh and Aberdeen, the Highlands and Islands and its seats in the borders under a Corbyn led Labour as those areas are more moderate
1966 England
1970 Brazil
1974 West Germany
1978 Argentina
1982 Italy
1986 Argentina
1990 West Germany
1994 Brazil
1998
To which a Scottish paper responded with
1970 Won **** all
1974 Won **** all
1978 Won **** all
1982 Won **** all
1986 Won **** all
1990 Won **** all
1994 Won **** all
Incredible: ToryHQ believe they've no women fit even to be considered for Mayor. London is modern open diverse -time Conservatives caught up.
Remind me who was PM from 1979.
Calm down, dear!
In 1975, 1989 and the first round of the 1990 leadership contest.
Have you paid your three quid to vote against women in the Labour contest?
If I were, my first choice would be a woman, Liz Kendall.
Purely because I backed and tipped her at 50/1 and 20/1, which would make me unbearably smug were she to win
*before I am beheaded, I'm only trolling
- M. H. Thatcher, quoted in The Spectator, 12/3/2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_cities_by_GVA
On closer inspection the London GVA per head number of £40.215 for 2013 is broken down into 5 London NUTS areas - 2008-13:
Inner London - West 120,436 118,614 125,136 128,833 134,538 135,888
Inner London - East 32,976 32,851 33,369 36,823 36,974 38,921
Outer London - E & NE 13,929 13,169 13,740 14,071 14,445 14,731
Outer London - South 17,777 17,118 17,226 17,267 17,458 18,045
Outer London - W & NW 24,991 22,926 23,495 24,745 24,727 25,713
For any stats nerds out there here is the UK regional breakout:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-accounts/regional-gross-value-added--income-approach-/december-2014/rft-nuts3.xls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature_of_Territorial_Units_for_Statistics
https://twitter.com/_youhadonejob/status/624996873527533568
http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef0192aba25169970d-pi
The nation is waiting for a clear socialist message
And complete and utter bollocks
Under Labour governments, Scotsmen held the positions of Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary, and the list goes on
And all of them have been replaced by the Futile 56, who hold no positions of influence whatsoever
The best moment of the Parliament so far was the additional debate on EVEL, secured not by the Futile 56, but by the man they so desperately want to get sacked!!
It's tragic
Unspoofable
Have seen some barbed comments on Twitter re Greens tying to sign up in Bristol.
Any attempt to interfere with the clearly defined process at this stage looks like panic and one from which the party could not recover if they acted on it.
They made their bed - they now have to lie on it.
Greenhalgh and Kammal are the outstanding candidates. Don't see the Zac thing; ain't done nuffink in politics yet.
I wanted an early night tonight
To vote in a leadership election one ought to already be a member.
She won't do anything of course. It's far too late.
They set up an open election process where anyone could join for £3 and have a vote.
It is too late the change that now - just because people are joining who might not vote for a certain candidate. The candidate who inspires enough people to join and vote deserves to win. Not to have a victory taken away because of it being the 'wrong sort' of new members.
Labour are finished as a political force if they attempt to rig this. Utterly discredited and heading for oblivion
#EVERYONElovesCORBYN
Some MPs are already resigned to defeat in 2020, whoever becomes leader, and fear that a Corbyn victory would bring the electoral oblivion that Labour had flirted with under Foot.
“If Andy [Burnham] wins,” said one Labour frontbencher, “we will just do what we can to make sure the election defeat is not as bad as it would be under Corbyn — because it would destroy the party, we would be a laughing stock.”
These people are hardly 'inspired' to join - they see an opportunity to turn Labour into some hard-left force, and that's what they are attempting to do.
But I'm sure the dozens of Communist party members will swing the ballot
Option B: Elect the "wrong" leader and immediately stage a coup.
Option C: Elect the "wrong" leader, and suffer electoral defeat for the foreseeable future.
Option
Heart of Stone...
Disallow 3 quid members from voting.
Seems the most sensible option if the evidence stacks up that entryism is in full flow.
And if by 'hard left' you mean those who believe Labour should be a party that uses Socialism as the guide for their politics, then Corbyn is inspiring people to join and vote. I fundamentally disagree with him and what he stands for - but he does seem to be reaching out in an incredible way. Many of my left-leaning friends have come out for Corbyn - and not all from the hard left of the party - just people who want an end to the weakening of what they see as core Labour values.
If you are a democratic party (and having an open vote shows that you want to be democratic) you have to take the risk that the voters will take things in a direction you didn't expect.
If you panic and try to block the will of members, you cause a major rupture between the membership and the leadership - and a breakdown in trust and reputation.
That is why giving in to this panic would be fatal.
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits
No subsidies for children
No handouts for spongers
No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
OSBORNE the dynasty 2020 to 2035
Part one soon!
There is no conceivable way that Corbyn would want/ or could run a shadow cabinet. Look at Tsipasris- he marched them to the top of the hill and then... At the end of the day, the pressure is too much for proper lefties.
You cannot compare Corbyn to IDS- Corbyn has operated as a splinter, oppositional cell in the Labour party for ever. It is just an impossibility to think that he could even begin to run some kind of Labour team with the backing of the MP's. There are maybe 15 MP's at most that are ideologically allied with him.
Unlike Ed, who I just think never thought through what the implications could be of actually winning (Ed was too caught up in the moment), Corbyn will be more reflective.
I like Corbyn very much. But at the end of the day, the guy is principled. He is not a psychopath, and he is not an ambitious, narcissist (like Ed Miliband).
Anyway, I'll remind you all of this when it all comes to fruition.
There has already been a gulf between the membership and the leadership - the membership wants ideological leftist purity 90% of the time, and the leadership wants to win elections.
Re The Donald, this is a great piece on commentators' predictions on how it will all end. What comes out clearly is that the commentators are not saying what they really think, just pushing their own party line. All the Dems talk up the seriousness and durability of Trump, all the Republicans either talk it down or say they don't know. But nevertheless, it is worth a read as there are, amongst all the lying, some truths.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-does-trump-end-120596.html?hp=t1_r#.VbP_BOu7KfR
A friend of mine has likened Trump to Berlusconi - a rich bigot who, in operating without a filter, says a lot of things others would like to say (but probably don't in a PC world) and so gains respect that is not due for 'getting it' and understanding normal people's viewpoints. He figures we underestimate Trump at our peril. I am not sure anyone is underestimating him, just wondering how to shoot him down without playing into his game.
The evidence for this alleged infiltration is hardly convincing. And no vetting process can be devised to weed out the undesirables. Even if someone has joined from the Communist Party or SWP, are they going to have to face a tribunal (in the style of the McCarthy era in the US) to see whether they are real Reds under the bed? Or just people that feel Corbyn as Labour leader would provide them with a real home in the Labour party.
How do you prove that someone is the right sort of Socialist to be allowed into the Labour party?
You can't.
They set up these new rules. They created this monster. The MPs nominated Corbyn. Labour has to live with this.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
Up until now, from Rose Law Firm billings, Whitewater, Benghazi, the foundation, email - there are plenty more - some people (depending on how pink your spectacles are) have said it is a right wing witch hunt, or as the Clintons themselves have said for 25 years "a vast right wing conspiracy".
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.