The movie "World War Z" posited the "tenth man": if all agree that something is certain, a tenth man is delegated to investigate the exact opposite[1]. Whilst not an original stance[2] it surely has merit, particularly after the polling debacle that led us all to ignore 10/1 odds on a Conservative majority.
With that in mind, let me list some assumptions that should be tenth-manned. They are:
* Jeremy Corbyn will not become Leader of the Labour Party * If he does, he will step down or be forced to step down before the 2020 election * He will be unpopular amongst the electorate * He will not win the 2020 election * David Cameron will argue for a "Yes" vote in the EU referendum * The EU referendum will be won by the "Yes" vote.
Those are widely-held assumptions but they are only assumptions: it's not impossible the opposite may occur and in each case there is some evidence that the opposite may occur.
I just threw up in my mouth after seeing the front page of tomorrow's Sun
precis?
I can't describe it, the only way I could describe it is, with dolls in a therapist's office. See the front page for yourself, once seen, it can never be unseen
He was on a high when that was taken, I suppose his descent is just a bit more of a bump. How will he explain it to his kids and grandchildren?
What a way to go, front page of The Sun, wearing a scarlet bra. He might be available to do Pizza Hut ads, wearing a brown paper bag over his head.
You know what? Fuck it. He's 69. He's a lord. He wrote the laws on Devolution. He finally went down wearing a scarlet bra, snorting coke off a hooker's tits. Respect.
Really? Wrote the laws on Labour's devolution? The BBC brazenly said he had no Party affiliation! But if you are right then its no wonder Devolution turned into such a dogs breakfast. He was of course a Labour candidate for the Scottish Parliament. Its hard to work out who or what to despise most. Sewell, Devolution, Labour or the BBC.
Actually a Sergeant move would be yet another disaster for Labour. An undefeated Corbyn who thinks he has the right to set the policy agenda for the party would be calamitous. Even the perception that this was the case would make the 2020 election a walk in the park for the tories.
The sad truth, which Corbyn is so callously exposing, is that the gulf between what the average Labour member thinks and even those who vote Labour, let alone the rest of the country, has probably never been greater. The membership like him because he indulges their fantasies and supposed verities, verities that the public found to be disproven some time in the early 80s when Corbyn was first elected.
I can understand the desire, even desperation, for the sane in Labour to find some excuse to bring this chaos to an end. By the time it is finished the next election may already be over.
The pbCOM Tories really do not understand the Labour membership. If they were a bunch of militant lefties, they would have backed Abbott last time, or McDonnell the time before. Every constituency MP would be a lefty firebrand. The likes of Ed Jarvis, Starmer, Chuka would never get anywhere.
Corbyn is doing well because Burnham, Kendell and Cooper are unconvincing. And this is after the disaster that was Ed Miliband. A Chuka, a David Miliband, maybe Alan Johnson would be home and hosed by now. We want a good leader- and Corbyn, for all his baggage, is just a million times more authentic and convincing than the rest.
Exactly how IDS won in 2001, but Labour do have a chance in 2020 as Cameron will not be there unlike Blair in 2005
It is an obselete cold war system designed for the problems of fifty years ago, and cannot be used independently of the USA. It is a £100 billion penis extension that convinces no one.
I shall repeat for your benefit... If the UK wants "influence" in the EU then it has to keep nukes (vile things though they are). It's real world power politics.
Think it through.
Nonsense. There are 26 other countries without nukes, and they have plenty of influence. Indeed Germany is often accused of having too much.
You are the one talking nonsense, Mr Fox. The UK doesn't have the weight of influence in the EU that it should. The axis of France & Germany has been the motor of the EU, as hundreds of articles and books will attest.
We cannot afford to let France have a monopoly of the "ultimate deterrent".
If you cannot see that then you really are too far gone a europhile to be saved, I'm afraid.
It is an obselete cold war system designed for the problems of fifty years ago, and cannot be used independently of the USA. It is a £100 billion penis extension that convinces no one.
I shall repeat for your benefit... If the UK wants "influence" in the EU then it has to keep nukes (vile things though they are). It's real world power politics.
Think it through.
The EU couldn't give a monkeys about our nukes. THe only place it gives us influence is NATO. And as we're one of the original nuclear powers, we're lumped with the burden of them forevermore.
Read my post above. It's about relative power in the EU - and not letting France hold too much sway. They're bad enough to deal with as it is, without giving them a monopoly in EU nukes!
I find it hard to believe that the most crushing defeat for a party could have happened without the policies themselves being unpopular, not just that Thatcher got a boost and the SDP were messing things up, though I was not there at the time. But an answer of why a devastating loss happened which seems to see no blame or responsibility on the approach or leadership, blaming it on nasty media, factors beyond the control of the party and splitters, seems unlikely to lead to such a scale of defeat. I can see it leading to defeat, but not on that scale.
It also seems like the media blaming point contains an unspoken assumption that social media, which we know leans left wing, acts as a counter balance to the evil normal media - but as we know those Facebook likes don't always help.
All the talk re Corbyn supporters is about anti-austerity.
But aren't they all missing the elephant in the room?
If Corbyn wins, all of the media and his opponents are going to go big time on:
- his support for abolition of the monarchy - his support for unilateral nuclear disarmament
We know the above are both huge vote losers. And they are both things which will get through to the public very easily - they aren't the sort of policy detail which nobody understands or takes any notice of.
I guess Corbyn may say abolition of the monarchy is just a personal view and not Lab party policy. But it is going to be impossible to hold that line - as he will be questioned about it repeatedly.
And the above issues will dominate in the GE 2020 campaign to the extent that the rest of his message gets crowded out.
Saving £100 billion by stopping Trident is quite a popular policy, and I am not sure that Corbyns republicanism would be a major issue.
And now many prominent IRA leaders are in government in NI and shake hands with the Queen and other dignataries. Indeed Corbyn appears rather prescient in calling for talks with the IRA.
Well Trident became an issue in GE 2015 - it was a significant issue re Lab joining with the SNP and weakening the UK's defences.
Stopping Trident is very popular with Corbyn supporters. It is not popular with Middle England.
And abolition of the monarchy will be even less popular with Middle England.
It is an obselete cold war system designed for the problems of fifty years ago, and cannot be used independently of the USA. It is a £100 billion penis extension that convinces no one.
Why would we have a system that could not be used independently of the USA? The USA play no part in the launching procedure for the current Trident submarines. It could be argued that reliance on GPS for navigation, which can ultimately turned on or off by the USA, puts us at their mercy.
And the £100 billion is a fantasy figure based on an estimate (by CND) of the running costs over forty years.
Ask the voters if they would prefer the £100 billion spent on other things. Indeed it is one of many things that they eould get a say in if Corbyn were LOTO.
I find it hard to believe that the most crushing defeat for a party could have happened without the policies themselves being unpopular, not just that Thatcher got a boost and the SDP were messing things up, though I was not there at the time. But an answer of why a devastating loss happened which seems to see no blame or responsibility on the approach or leadership, blaming it on nasty media, factors beyond the control of the party and splitters, seems unlikely to lead to such a scale of defeat. I can see it leading to defeat, but not on that scale.
It also seems like the media blaming point contains an unspoken assumption that social media, which we know leans left wing, acts as a counter balance to the evil normal media - but as we know those Facebook likes don't always help.
Indeed, may be a few more years of speaking to themselves I think, night
All the talk re Corbyn supporters is about anti-austerity.
impossible to hold that line - as he will be questioned about it repeatedly.
And the above issues will dominate in the GE 2020 campaign to the extent that the rest of his message gets crowded out.
Saving £100 billion by stopping Trident is quite a popular policy, and I am not sure that CoA.
Well Trident became an issue in GE 2015 - it was a significant issue re Lab joining with the SNP and weakening the UK's defences.
Stopping Trident is very popular with Corbyn supporters. It is not popular with Middle England.
And abolition of the monarchy will be even less popular with Middle England.
.
Why would we have a system that could not be used independently of the USA? The USA play no part in the launching procedure for the current Trident submarines. It could be argued that reliance on GPS for navigation, which can ultimately turned on or off by the USA, puts us at their mercy.
And the £100 billion is a fantasy figure based on an estimate (by CND) of the running costs over forty years.
Ask the voters if they would prefer the £100 billion spent on other things. Indeed it is one of many things that they eould get a say in if Corbyn were LOTO.
Lets just be clear of what we mean. Trident is heavily dependent on the USA for its support and maintenance (its their missiles!). The report linked to, reinforces our dependence on them. The report talks about goodwill, but its more about an agreement, like I have an agreement with a car dealer to service my car as part of its leasing requirements. While goodwill is important in all contracts, especially between sovereign states, there is no reason why the USA would start playing silly bug*ers.
I was interpreting your statement "cannot be used independently of the USA" as in meaning it could not be fired independently of the USA.
I repeat, the command structure and decision making over whether to fire a trident missile is entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, orwhoever the Monarch determines should be acting in their place should they be no longer able to exercise that position.
While I cannot think of any situation in which the UK would retaliate with a nuclear device without first having talks with the USA, they are not however a decision maker.
@TissuePrice, just popped onto PB.com to find your utterly inspired thread header and article!! Definitely one to be filed under PB.coms classic top 10 articles!! PS Must admit that I initially thought that it had to be a TSE article with that music reference!!
@TissuePrice, just popped onto PB.com to find your utterly inspired thread header and article!! Definitely one to be filed under PB.coms classic top 10 articles!! PS Must admit that I initially thought that it had to be a TSE article with that music reference!!
Thanks @fitalass. The music reference was to make sure that TSE published it :-)
Comments
With that in mind, let me list some assumptions that should be tenth-manned. They are:
* Jeremy Corbyn will not become Leader of the Labour Party
* If he does, he will step down or be forced to step down before the 2020 election
* He will be unpopular amongst the electorate
* He will not win the 2020 election
* David Cameron will argue for a "Yes" vote in the EU referendum
* The EU referendum will be won by the "Yes" vote.
Those are widely-held assumptions but they are only assumptions: it's not impossible the opposite may occur and in each case there is some evidence that the opposite may occur.
Perhaps we should all bear that in mind...
Notes
[1] Apparently based on real life: see http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/10/intelligence kuperwasser/10_intelligence_kuperwasser.pdf
[2] Clarke's First Law
But if you are right then its no wonder Devolution turned into such a dogs breakfast. He was of course a Labour candidate for the Scottish Parliament.
Its hard to work out who or what to despise most. Sewell, Devolution, Labour or the BBC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/left-wing-labour_b_7863132.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
We cannot afford to let France have a monopoly of the "ultimate deterrent".
If you cannot see that then you really are too far gone a europhile to be saved, I'm afraid.
It also seems like the media blaming point contains an unspoken assumption that social media, which we know leans left wing, acts as a counter balance to the evil normal media - but as we know those Facebook likes don't always help.
Also done Oakham to Corby just last Monday
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unit_222103_at_Oakham.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unit_222103_at_Kettering.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unit_222008_at_Melton_Mowbray.JPG
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk
Ask the voters if they would prefer the £100 billion spent on other things. Indeed it is one of many things that they eould get a say in if Corbyn were LOTO.
I was interpreting your statement "cannot be used independently of the USA" as in meaning it could not be fired independently of the USA.
I repeat, the command structure and decision making over whether to fire a trident missile is entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, orwhoever the Monarch determines should be acting in their place should they be no longer able to exercise that position.
While I cannot think of any situation in which the UK would retaliate with a nuclear device without first having talks with the USA, they are not however a decision maker.
golden showers, yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sewel,_Baron_Sewel
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/?publisherid=1736887&tduid=1751f7ef2fe4c2f4c532a9c440b33580#/politics/market/1.103946886