Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind says he’s voting for party unity by putting Liz K

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind says he’s voting for party unity by putting Liz Kendall first

Just as Kendall has been told she’s a Tory I was told “You should go and join the SDP”. It was wounding – the more so because it came from a friend. It was the 80s and we were on opposite sides of one of the many controversies inspired by or centred on Tony Benn.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    First!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,388
    edited July 2015
    Good for Don...

    Especially as he's ended that daft last thread early!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    You seem to be a lone voice of sanity in the Labour party Don.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Good on you Don - I take it you don't think there's any chance of Corbyn withdrawing?
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    Hmm the Tories getting back into power after increasing their number of seats, the Labour party tearing itself apart, an SDP style party in the Lib Dems with a handful of seats ready to take advantage.

    It's 1983 all over again isn't it?

    If the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition with the Tories causing them to lose most of their seats then they would probably be the official opposition after the next election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    edited July 2015
    Good evening from an Aussie bar in sunny Dubai, where the atmosphere is, umm, rather quiet.
    Except, that is, for a dozen of us 'Poms' singing not very nice songs at about 100 antipodeans (to give them a more polite name than the rest of the crowd are using).
    :D
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited July 2015
    FPT
    EPG said:

    Indigo said:

    "Compassion" is a complete red herring in most political arguments, but definitely so here. Mostly because its incredibly easy to signal compassion while doing absolutely nothing.

    According to our friend EPG down thread that is as it should be action is apparently a conservative thing, so now we know :)
    Hahaha!

    I am really just trying to put down virtue signalling as a conservative meme. Everyone does it, left or right. Like the Cole Porter song.
    It really isn't a conservative meme there have been plenty of left wingers in the New Statesman, Guardian etc using the term to warn their colleague on the left from too much navel gazing

    http://www.newstatesman.com/helen-lewis/2015/07/echo-chamber-social-media-luring-left-cosy-delusion-and-dangerous-insularity
    http://www.liberal-vision.org/2015/05/20/virtue-signaling-a-symptom-of-a-sick-nation/
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/tweet-socialist-paradise-election-changed-that

    and was apparently originated by that well known Tory, Libby Purves

    http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2015/05/virtue-signalling.html
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    Sun-tzu: If your enemy is superior, evade him. If angry, irritate him. If equally matched, fight, and if not split and reevaluate.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Hmm the Tories getting back into power after increasing their number of seats, the Labour party tearing itself apart, an SDP style party in the Lib Dems with a handful of seats ready to take advantage.

    It's 1983 all over again isn't it?

    If the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition with the Tories causing them to lose most of their seats then they would probably be the official opposition after the next election.


    Under Farron ? No chance - he's poison.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    TGOHF said:

    You seem to be a lone voice of sanity in the Labour party Don.

    Sanity in the Labour party???? Is that an oxymoron?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Hmm Order I know a wicket has fallen:

    1) Betfair
    2) Cricinfo

    I'll get to see it on Sky Go in a second.

    And there it is.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966
    Danny565 said:
    It contains this gem:

    "Liz Kendall (15)

    Barking
    "

    Her age and state of mind?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited July 2015
    'Mine is a tactical vote. I think a poor showing for Kendall would be bad for the Labour party'


    Party before Country? :lol:



  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    edited July 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Hmm Order I know a wicket has fallen:

    1) Betfair
    2) Cricinfo

    I'll get to see it on Sky Go in a second.

    And there it is.

    LOL!

    Cricinfo just noted that it's 10 years since the last 2-day Test, also noting that the commentators hadn't mentioned it for fear of jinxing the team. Do Sky UK have Punter and Warne as well? Listening to them right now is hilarious!
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213

    Good on you Don - I take it you don't think there's any chance of Corbyn withdrawing?

    Someone on the Mumsnet Q&A asked Jeremy if he'd "do the decent thing" (their words not mine) and stand down. This is what he said in response:

    "Thanks. Can I pose a question back to you. What would be decent about removing myself from a process in which many people have put in a huge amount of time and energy to develop a good, decent alternative political strategy for our party?"

    He's not going to withdraw. Besides, if he were going to he'd only have a week at most in which to do it, since ballot papers will be printed soon.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,804
    TGOHF said:

    Hmm the Tories getting back into power after increasing their number of seats, the Labour party tearing itself apart, an SDP style party in the Lib Dems with a handful of seats ready to take advantage.

    It's 1983 all over again isn't it?

    If the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition with the Tories causing them to lose most of their seats then they would probably be the official opposition after the next election.


    Under Farron ? No chance - he's poison.
    I think the idea is that if the LDs had not gone into coalition they would have around 70 MPs and Farron would not be leader. Not sure I agree, but it's plausible.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157

    'Mine is a tactical vote. I think a poor showing for Kendall would be bad for the Labour party'


    Party before Country? :lol:

    "No, the country comes first!" :)
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    If they can't enthuse enough members of the public to pay the pittance of £3 to sign up and vote for their candidate, it doesn't exactly suggest their arguments would be successful in enthusing the electorate in a general election.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    edited July 2015

    Good on you Don - I take it you don't think there's any chance of Corbyn withdrawing?

    Someone on the Mumsnet Q&A asked Jeremy if he'd "do the decent thing" (their words not mine) and stand down. This is what he said in response:

    "Thanks. Can I pose a question back to you. What would be decent about removing myself from a process in which many people have put in a huge amount of time and energy to develop a good, decent alternative political strategy for our party?"

    He's not going to withdraw. Besides, if he were going to he'd only have a week at most in which to do it, since ballot papers will be printed soon.
    The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
    (R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Pulpstar said:

    Hmm Order I know a wicket has fallen:

    1) Betfair
    2) Cricinfo

    I'll get to see it on Sky Go in a second.

    And there it is.

    I'm on http://live.cricket.com.au - much faster than al-Beeb.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106

    And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

    I thought that you said that you were teetotal? :smile:
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    thats the problem isn't it. No one would say the left/far left aren't passionate. They're actually working to win this.

    It's a crazy set-up opening up the voting pool, and always going to attract the loonies.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    thats the problem isn't it. No one would say the left/far left aren't passionate. They're actually working to win this.

    It's a crazy set-up opening up the voting pool, and always going to attract the loonies.
    But it was the Blairites who wanted the system because they thought less politically-interested, more "moderate" people would sign up to vote. Could it not be that Blairite politics simply doesn't have the purchase even on "moderate" people that they expected?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT

    "When governments deliver services based on the needs of the people they serve, they can increase public satisfaction and reduce costs."

    http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/Implementing_a_citizen-centric_approach_to_delivering_government_services?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1507
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    On topic, is it possible that if Kendall comes a very distant 4th with Corbyn elected, there could be either another SDP split, or a bunch of defections to LD and/or Con of the centrist Labout party?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    Disraeli said:

    And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

    I thought that you said that you were teetotal? :smile:
    "Just remember something. Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Good friend of mine and I were chatting Labour leadership over lunch, but would vote for Kendall if he hadn't left the Labour Party in despair after Gordon.

    He said she's the only one with any sort of idea how to get back into power. Though he can't stand Blair, he's the first to say that Tony was spot on about getting the balance of Left vs Right = Number 10. He doesn't think Labour deserves to be in power for a decade.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    thats the problem isn't it. No one would say the left/far left aren't passionate. They're actually working to win this.

    It's a crazy set-up opening up the voting pool, and always going to attract the loonies.
    But it was the Blairites who wanted the system because they thought less politically-interested, more "moderate" people would sign up to vote. Could it not be that Blairite politics simply doesn't have the purchase even on "moderate" people that they expected?
    I thought the Blairites wanted the system because they thought the union influence would be reduced and an Ed Miliband like candidate wouldn't be being elected. In any case, the union influence is still very much there - despite earlier indications to the contrary - and a candidate WAY more left-wing than Ed Miliband may well be elected.

    Blairites' problem is that they have no ideas going forward. Arguably the coalition have taken some of their clothes especially on education.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    thats the problem isn't it. No one would say the left/far left aren't passionate. They're actually working to win this.

    It's a crazy set-up opening up the voting pool, and always going to attract the loonies.
    But it was the Blairites who wanted the system because they thought less politically-interested, more "moderate" people would sign up to vote. Could it not be that Blairite politics simply doesn't have the purchase even on "moderate" people that they expected?
    Yes and No. If by blairite you mean the 'centre' then I expect that like most people they don't really engage with politics in any great level or number most of the time.

    If that was the aim then it was utterly misguided, looking at it now, it's obvious that the more 'politically minded' ie the activiest left were going to be more engerised than the more dis-engaged masses.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    I've got a leaked copy of Corbyn's acceptance speech:

    "Comrades. Yesterday we stood on the edge of the abyss. Today we took a great step forward."
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Oz fans with the brollies out.

    Hoping for an old testament flood here I guess.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    rcs1000 said:

    I've got a leaked copy of Corbyn's acceptance speech:

    "Comrades. Yesterday we stood on the edge of the abyss. Today we took a great step forward."

    "I don't throw darts at a board. I bet on sure things. Read Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Every battle is won before it is ever fought."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    edited July 2015
    Financier said:

    OT

    "When governments deliver services based on the needs of the people they serve, they can increase public satisfaction and reduce costs."

    http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/Implementing_a_citizen-centric_approach_to_delivering_government_services?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1507

    And in other news, the religious affiliation of the Pontiff is confirmed, along with ursine defecation habits when in arborous areas.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, is it possible that if Kendall comes a very distant 4th with Corbyn elected, there could be either another SDP split, or a bunch of defections to LD and/or Con of the centrist Labout party?

    And if not that, given the vitriole deployed against them, could their be purge of the Blairites?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    This wasn’t supposed to happen, he was the token clown ffs, it was theirs for the taking, now Burnham and Cooper have been struck dumb by the swarm of support for Corbyn. Tragic.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Those comments from the CWU about a 'virus' in the labour party.

    Sheesh.

  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    Ashes - 6 down!
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    The Telegraph’s Mary Riddell doesn’t share that concern – “the radical Left-winger is a beacon of modernity in tune with young voters.”She reckons Corbyn’s anti-austerity line may allow him “to harness the fury that will surely erupt in Britain when the Chancellor implements spending reductions of 40 per cent in unprotected departments, with the aim of saving £20 billion in this Parliament.”

    Was a poll from just before the GE not quoted on here a few weeks ago (as a component of seeking to explain the GE result) that a huge proportion of people have not even noticed ANY austerity.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106

    Disraeli said:

    And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

    I thought that you said that you were teetotal? :smile:
    "Just remember something. Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
    Sun-tzu reincarnated as Sunil-tzu! :smiley:
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    thats the problem isn't it. No one would say the left/far left aren't passionate. They're actually working to win this.

    It's a crazy set-up opening up the voting pool, and always going to attract the loonies.
    But it was the Blairites who wanted the system because they thought less politically-interested, more "moderate" people would sign up to vote. Could it not be that Blairite politics simply doesn't have the purchase even on "moderate" people that they expected?
    Yes and No. If by blairite you mean the 'centre' then I expect that like most people they don't really engage with politics in any great level or number most of the time.

    If that was the aim then it was utterly misguided, looking at it now, it's obvious that the more 'politically minded' ie the activiest left were going to be more engerised than the more dis-engaged masses.
    Well, I don't really. Today's Blairites like Kendall have a weird policy mix of almost wholesale acceptance of Tory economics, evangelism about the EU, and an obsession with marketising public services and "devolving power". Even though there's no evidence at all that this would succeed in winning elections -- indeed, the Lib Dems just stood on a very similar platform, and they got routed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966
    rcs1000 said:

    I've got a leaked copy of Corbyn's acceptance speech:

    "Comrades. Yesterday we stood on the edge of the abyss. Today we took a great step forward."

    A Great Leap Forward is more in keeping with his politics!

    Cue Billy Bragg......
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    When was the last time an Ashes match ended in two days?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Sunny was spot on here and I don't often agree with him.

    The Blairites haven't developed a new set of ambitions - mouthing Tony is so 1997. It's their own silly fault that they've been eyeing the Prince Over The Water for years or polishing Chuka's head.

    There's nothing in their kit bag. That Liz has nothing to say apart from some home truths about spending too much - she's not come up with anything I can think of.

    Andy doesn't count anymore as he'll say absolutely anything to get a vote except support Liverpool FC.

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    thats the problem isn't it. No one would say the left/far left aren't passionate. They're actually working to win this.

    It's a crazy set-up opening up the voting pool, and always going to attract the loonies.
    But it was the Blairites who wanted the system because they thought less politically-interested, more "moderate" people would sign up to vote. Could it not be that Blairite politics simply doesn't have the purchase even on "moderate" people that they expected?
    I thought the Blairites wanted the system because they thought the union influence would be reduced and an Ed Miliband like candidate wouldn't be being elected. In any case, the union influence is still very much there - despite earlier indications to the contrary - and a candidate WAY more left-wing than Ed Miliband may well be elected.

    Blairites' problem is that they have no ideas going forward. Arguably the coalition have taken some of their clothes especially on education.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    It doesn't really matter who wins the Labour leadership. The way it works is this. The Tory party makes itself more and more grotesque until the voters can't bear to have them any longer.

    They then change leader in the hope that the new person will not appear as inhuman as the previous one. A couple of years later the voters realise that it wasn't the head but the whole fish that reeked. At that point they vote Labour. I think Corbyn is probably the most fearless and the least likely to be just another opportunist. So why not?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    edited July 2015
    MikeL said:

    The Telegraph’s Mary Riddell doesn’t share that concern – “the radical Left-winger is a beacon of modernity in tune with young voters.”She reckons Corbyn’s anti-austerity line may allow him “to harness the fury that will surely erupt in Britain when the Chancellor implements spending reductions of 40 per cent in unprotected departments, with the aim of saving £20 billion in this Parliament.”

    Was a poll from just before the GE not quoted on here a few weeks ago (as a component of seeking to explain the GE result) that a huge proportion of people have not even noticed ANY austerity.

    Riddell was saying essentially the same thing about "Tory cuts" and a consequent leftward shift of the political centre five years ago. You might think she would have noticed the election result.

    The truth is that the UK got off lightly compared to the PIGS. In the grand scheme of things the cuts we have and will undertake are relatively moderate.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Unhappy Blairites say leadership contest now "a battle for soul of the Labour party"

    If thats the case then maybe the Blairites might want to actually start fighting, as theres not much of it from them at the moment.
    Or failing that, signing up party members...
    thats the problem isn't it. No one would say the left/far left aren't passionate. They're actually working to win this.

    It's a crazy set-up opening up the voting pool, and always going to attract the loonies.
    But it was the Blairites who wanted the system because they thought less politically-interested, more "moderate" people would sign up to vote. Could it not be that Blairite politics simply doesn't have the purchase even on "moderate" people that they expected?
    Yes and No. If by blairite you mean the 'centre' then I expect that like most people they don't really engage with politics in any great level or number most of the time.

    If that was the aim then it was utterly misguided, looking at it now, it's obvious that the more 'politically minded' ie the activiest left were going to be more engerised than the more dis-engaged masses.
    Well, I don't really. Today's Blairites like Kendall have a weird policy mix of almost wholesale acceptance of Tory economics, evangelism about the EU, and an obsession with marketising public services and "devolving power". Even though there's no evidence at all that this would succeed in winning elections -- indeed, the Lib Dems just stood on a very similar platform, and they got routed.
    I would agree that the Blairites have lost their way, mainly as the tories as parked tanks all over them. But then labour has lost it's way full stop.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Good evening, everyone.

    Just on 'swarm': there were over a thousand trying to get into the Tunnel. They've been marauding around lorries with knives and other weapons. 'Swarm' is fine.

    Saw a smidgen of BBC News and was surprised to see Norman Smith suggesting there could be civil war in Labour following the description by one union or other of Blairites as a virus to whom Corbyn was the antidote (also, I believe viruses don't have antidotes, but that's another matter).
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited July 2015
    ''There's nothing in their kit bag. ''

    There must be plenty of blairites and centre left people who worked hard for labour in the last election and those before it.

    To be called a 'virus'. Goodness.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Mary Riddell is like Jenni Russell in the Times - both unwavering flag wavers for Labour - everything is good news.

    TBH, I find their loyalty quaintly touching, but I don't give it any credence.
    glw said:

    MikeL said:

    The Telegraph’s Mary Riddell doesn’t share that concern – “the radical Left-winger is a beacon of modernity in tune with young voters.”She reckons Corbyn’s anti-austerity line may allow him “to harness the fury that will surely erupt in Britain when the Chancellor implements spending reductions of 40 per cent in unprotected departments, with the aim of saving £20 billion in this Parliament.”

    Was a poll from just before the GE not quoted on here a few weeks ago (as a component of seeking to explain the GE result) that a huge proportion of people have not even noticed ANY austerity.

    Riddell was saying essentially the same thing about "Tory cuts" and a consequent leftward shift of the political centre five years ago. You might think she would have noticed the election result.

    The truth is that the UK got off lightly compared to the PIGS. In the grand scheme of things the cuts we have and will undertake are relatively moderate.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    rcs1000 said:

    When was the last time an Ashes match ended in two days?

    1st Test 1921, at Trent Bridge.
    Australia won by 10 wickets
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I would agree that the Blairites have lost their way, mainly as the tories as parked tanks all over them. But then labour has lost it's way full stop.

    The problem Labour has (that every opposition party always has) is that to win the party needs a leader that won't just appeal to their own supporters but to supporters of other parties. Yet their own supporters (and anyone who can be bothered to sign up here) make that choice. Leaders like IDS, Romney and Corbyn can appeal to the supporters but would never win the election. When the supporters are fed up with losing, that's when they'll elect a Blair/Cameron/Obama.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    The last time Australia LOST an Ashes test in two days was the 2nd Test at the Oval in 1890.
    England won by 2 wickets.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited July 2015
    Plato said:

    Sunny was spot on here and I don't often agree with him.

    The Blairites haven't developed a new set of ambitions - mouthing Tony is so 1997. It's their own silly fault that they've been eyeing the Prince Over The Water for years or polishing Chuka's head.

    There's nothing in their kit bag. That Liz has nothing to say apart from some home truths about spending too much - she's not come up with anything I can think of.

    Andy doesn't count anymore as he'll say absolutely anything to get a vote except support Liverpool FC.

    Your comment on Burnham made me smile!

    I find it odd that Chuka Umunna is Blairites favoured candidate. He voted for Ed Miliband of all people in 2010, appeared to be a Miliband ally for most of 2010-15, and slightly more left of centre than many Blairites. That someone so unexpected became the leading Blairite candidate is proof about how that fraction of the party is really lacking leadership figures. I know Brown pretty much bull-dozed much of the old Blairites who had more credibility, but in an age where politics is pretty much a cult of youth I think many of these figures would be retiring from front-line politics anyway, e.g. Alan Johnson.

    One of the most bizarre Brownite-Blairite conversions though was Douglas Alexander. He became a Blairite long after Blair had departed politics.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    Plato said:

    Mary Riddell is like Jenni Russell in the Times - both unwavering flag wavers for Labour - everything is good news.

    I usually skip Ridell, but I read the article in question and and thought "yep, still bonkers".

    I'm enjoying this Labour leadership election even more than the last. Corbyn might not win, but what his level of support says about the Labour Party is very encouraging for those of us who hope to never see another Labour government.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2015
    The Red-On-Red animosity is really rather ugly. And the signs have been there and growing for years.

    The GMB tried to get Progress banned from the Labour in 2012. No wonder Blairites are feeling purged. What seemed unlikely but unpleasant cleansing in 2012, looks much more like BAU under a Corbyn regime. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/staggers/2012/06/campaign-against-progress-spells-pure-danger-labour
    Broadly speaking, the charge is that Progress is a shadowy organisation, a secretive phalanx of right-wingers with corporate backing who have infiltrated the party with a view to steering it away from the path of left virtue. The alternative view is that it is an organisation that lobbies within the party for views and policy ideas – some of which might be great, some of which might be bonkers, much of which contributed to Labour’s most successful time in British politics. If, that is, being in power is considered a success.

    But the key question isn’t whether Progress is right about some things or indeed anything. It is whether or not it has the right to exist within the Labour party.

    At this week’s annual congress of the GMB union there were a couple on interventions attacking Progress. The idea was mooted of bringing changes to Labour party rules effectively killing the organisation. People in Progress itself believe there is similar agitation in other large unions. The resources and data required to compile and send out the February dossier suggest union involvement.

    So what is it all about? Obviously there is ideology. People don’t like Blairites and want them to go away. I have heard it said by a few people on the Labour left that the Blairites should be expelled from the party, drawing an equivalence with Militant in the 1980s. I find the comparison pretty wild, but then extreme metaphors are not unusual in politics (or journalism).
    taffys said:

    ''There's nothing in their kit bag. ''

    There must be plenty of blairites and centre left people who worked hard for labour in the last election and those before it.

    To be called a 'virus'. Goodness.

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    @glw, I think you'll be disappointed if you seriously think The Tories will always and forever be the largest party at GEs.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Indigo said:

    FPT
    It really isn't a conservative meme there have been plenty of left wingers in the New Statesman, Guardian etc using the term to warn their colleague on the left from too much navel gazing

    http://www.newstatesman.com/helen-lewis/2015/07/echo-chamber-social-media-luring-left-cosy-delusion-and-dangerous-insularity
    http://www.liberal-vision.org/2015/05/20/virtue-signaling-a-symptom-of-a-sick-nation/
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/tweet-socialist-paradise-election-changed-that

    and was apparently originated by that well known Tory, Libby Purves

    http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2015/05/virtue-signalling.html

    If I may digress, I have been following the development of this concept since well before the general election. "Signalling" is an economic concept about side-effects of publicly observable actions, which has been operationalised for use in public policy and social commentary by prominent American bloggers of a right-wing and libertarian nature; notably Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan on education, and promoted by the more popular blogger Tyler Cowen. The development those men made to the economic concept was to add the notion that certain actions may be inherently valueless but act merely as a signal. For instance, Caplan argues that much of higher education is worthless (and thus a wasteful use of government funds), and its entire value is as a signal that the person is credentialled. I think this is of direct relevance to the later British concept of "virtue signalling".

    It seems to have hopped trans-Atlantic and mutated into virtue signalling thanks to the intervention of the not non-Tory Spectator magazine in April (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9501282/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/). The article begins with an American example, and develops "virtue signalling" further by using it when the actions that carried the signal are actually harmful (i.e. rough questioning of Nigel Farage; foreign aid; funding the NHS. Well, it's the Spectator). Ironically, it ends with the very virtuous declaration that residual Christian opposition to the sin of pride motivates the author's public hatred of other people's public hatred. So virtue signalling was already off to a hypocritical start.

    Guido picked it up two days later and tweeted it, so I'm surprised more PB people hadn't heard of it before the election since he seems to be the font of a lot of discussion. Then leftists picked it up as a kind of balm after getting battered in the election.

    None of this means it isn't utter bunkum.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956

    @glw, I think you'll be disappointed if you seriously think The Tories will always and forever be the largest party at GEs.

    I don't think that, I'm hoping a non-bonkers centre left party might take Labour's place.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Has a Test ever finished in two days before?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited July 2015

    @glw, I think you'll be disappointed if you seriously think The Tories will always and forever be the largest party at GEs.

    No, someone else will, but currently it's not looking as if that party could be Labour for a long, long while.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    glw said:

    @glw, I think you'll be disappointed if you seriously think The Tories will always and forever be the largest party at GEs.

    I don't think that, I'm hoping a non-bonkers centre left party might take Labour's place.
    Like who?

    The LDs have been reduced to 8 MPs. They face a battle to stay relevant, and even have their voice heard - let alone be the largest centre-left party.

    The Labour party won't split into two parties in the event of a Corbyn win - most likely Blairites and others will stay and fight on 'for the party's soul' and what not.

    Most of the social movements on the Left appeared to be allied to the kind of politics Corbyn espouses.

    If a centre-left opposition is going to replace Labour, where is it going to come from?
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Hmm the Tories getting back into power after increasing their number of seats, the Labour party tearing itself apart, an SDP style party in the Lib Dems with a handful of seats ready to take advantage.

    It's 1983 all over again isn't it?

    If the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition with the Tories causing them to lose most of their seats then they would probably be the official opposition after the next election.


    Under Farron ? No chance - he's poison.
    I think the idea is that if the LDs had not gone into coalition they would have around 70 MPs and Farron would not be leader. Not sure I agree, but it's plausible.
    Exactly. If they'd just gone for supply and confidence and put their foot down over tuition fees then they'd be laughing now.

    By the way Is Farron really all that bad?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited July 2015
    Disraeli said:

    Disraeli said:

    And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

    I thought that you said that you were teetotal? :smile:
    "Just remember something. Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
    Sun-tzu reincarnated as Sunil-tzu! :smiley:
    I think not, at least not from what I am sure is a nasty misquote:

    "when evenly matched, fight"

    I am sure that cannot be correct not least because it contradicts the maxim that every battle is won before it is fought.

    Perhaps the transition from pirate king to ancient chinese war-lord and sage has clouded some of Sunil's synapses.

    Are ye all right Cap'n Sunil? Belike, else.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    AndyJS said:

    Has a Test ever finished in two days before?

    Yes and I had tickets to days three and four of that match.

    England v the Windies in 2000 at Headingley
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    AndyJS said:

    Has a Test ever finished in two days before?

    See my replies upthread :smile:
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    One thing that could happen - maybe - is a defection or two from Labour to LDs [Farron isn't the whole Party]

    We're in a 5yrs Parly - that's a guaranteed job for anyone who's at the end of their career and wants to make a point/shake things up.

    I don't see a repeat of the SDP, yet. But it's happened before and the LDs are at a very low ebb seat wise, again. There are enough voters who lean Left, but not as far as Jezza who could be pulled into a broadened LD Party. They've also been through this before within living memory - maybe they'd make their own overtures too.

    I certainly don't think it's a wacky idea. And depending on what Jezza does if he wins - well all bets are off.

    glw said:

    @glw, I think you'll be disappointed if you seriously think The Tories will always and forever be the largest party at GEs.

    I don't think that, I'm hoping a non-bonkers centre left party might take Labour's place.
    Like who?

    The LDs have been reduced to 8 MPs. They face a battle to stay relevant, and even have their voice heard - let alone be the largest centre-left party.

    The Labour party won't split into two parties in the event of a Corbyn win - most likely Blairites and others will stay and fight on 'for the party's soul' and what not.

    Most of the social movements on the Left appeared to be allied to the kind of politics Corbyn espouses.

    If a centre-left opposition is going to replace Labour, where is it going to come from?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2015
    The one achievement the LDs had in government was the least-needed: a fixed five year term parliament. It ought to be four years or three years like in Australia IMO. In today's fast moving world, five years seems like an age. For example, the iPad wasn't even publicly available at the time of the 2010 election, yet it seems as if it's been around for much longer than five years.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Llama, had a quick flick through my copy but couldn't find the right page. It might be that when forces are evenly matched the enemy ought to be divided.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT On the subject of TV shows you never thought would appear again - well I think ITV have managed it.

    They've taken One Man And His Dog, added Gaby Logan and created this summer's version of Splash. Reality sheep-herding on prime-time. I'm watching it just to make sure I'm not tripping. Flockstars ITV 8pm tonight.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    watford30 said:

    @glw, I think you'll be disappointed if you seriously think The Tories will always and forever be the largest party at GEs.

    No, someone else will, but currently it's not looking as if that party could be Labour for a long, long while.
    How long do you seriously think Labour will be out of power? After 10 years people usually get sick of governments, and after 15 years especially they've had enough. If the Corbyn Left fails, the modernisers will probably take back the party - either by the 2020 GE or before that.

    A lot of 'ace' cards the Tories had to play - mainly Cameron as their leader - won't be there in 2020 and their competence could be damaged by a number of events, including the EU ref, the spectacle of a leadership contest from 2017 onwards, potentially 'bad' economic events, the impact of austerity, and even a Osborne or Johnson leadership going down like a lead ballon.

    On top of that if Farron *does* managed a some kind of LD revival, then that could well affect the Tory gains in the South West.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2015
    One of the most attractive features of Test Cricket is/was the drama of the final day IMO. Now, because they're playing as if it's a 20/20 match, hardly any Tests are getting anywhere near the fifth day. It's going to end up being abolished at this rate.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157

    Disraeli said:

    Disraeli said:

    And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

    I thought that you said that you were teetotal? :smile:
    "Just remember something. Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
    Sun-tzu reincarnated as Sunil-tzu! :smiley:
    I think not, at least not from what I am sure is a nasty misquote:

    "when evenly matched, fight"

    I am sure that cannot be correct not least because it contradicts the maxim that every battle is won before it is fought.

    Perhaps the transition from pirate king to ancient chinese war-lord and sage has clouded some of Sunil's synapses.

    Are ye all right Cap'n Sunil? Belike, else.
    Ahoy, Mr Llama - was quoting the movie Wall Street (1987) :)

    "I don't throw darts at a board. I bet on sure things. Read Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Every battle is won before it is ever fought."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    edited July 2015
    Ms. Apocalypse, depends on many factors. Neither side should be complacent.

    If Scotland leaves, the Conservatives would be the favoured major party south of the border, I suspect.

    Edited extra bit: and cheers for the Sunzi/Sun Tzu mention. Having a quick flick through, it reminded me I could do worse than to read that (and my Zhuge Liang/Liu Ji commentary on Sunzi's Art of War).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    AndyJS said:

    One of the most attractive features of Test Cricket is/was the drama of the final day IMO. Now, because they're playing as if it's a 20/20 match, hardly any Tests are getting anywhere near the fifth day. It's going to end up being abolished at this rate.

    Nonsense.

    Some of the most dramatic tests haven't gone into the final day
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The maths of Labour climbing back up to a working maj aren't in their favour for a win in 2020.

    Labour are more than 90 seats behind the Tories. That's landslide territory.

    So unless something fairly cataclysmic happens between now and GE2020 - they aren't going to leap that tall building in a single bound no matter how bored Joe Public are with the Tories.

    watford30 said:

    @glw, I think you'll be disappointed if you seriously think The Tories will always and forever be the largest party at GEs.

    No, someone else will, but currently it's not looking as if that party could be Labour for a long, long while.
    How long do you seriously think Labour will be out of power? After 10 years people usually get sick of governments, and after 15 years especially they've had enough. If the Corbyn Left fails, the modernisers will probably take back the party - either by the 2020 GE or before that.

    A lot of 'ace' cards the Tories had to play - mainly Cameron as their leader - won't be there in 2020 and their competence could be damaged by a number of events, including the EU ref, the spectacle of a leadership contest from 2017 onwards, potentially 'bad' economic events, the impact of austerity, and even a Osborne or Johnson leadership going down like a lead ballon.

    On top of that if Farron *does* managed a some kind of LD revival, then that could well affect the Tory gains in the South West.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Good evening, everyone.

    Just on 'swarm': there were over a thousand trying to get into the Tunnel. They've been marauding around lorries with knives and other weapons. 'Swarm' is fine.

    Saw a smidgen of BBC News and was surprised to see Norman Smith suggesting there could be civil war in Labour following the description by one union or other of Blairites as a virus to whom Corbyn was the antidote (also, I believe viruses don't have antidotes, but that's another matter).

    Indeed viruses are countered either with vaccines or anti-virals. And only a small subset of viruses are harmful. In fact evolution would have been far slower without viruses to spread beneficial genes, and some boost the immune system or kill pathogens (e.g. bacteriophages)
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Plato said:

    One thing that could happen - maybe - is a defection or two from Labour to LDs [Farron isn't the whole Party]

    We're in a 5yrs Parly - that's a guaranteed job for anyone who's at the end of their career and wants to make a point/shake things up.

    I don't see a repeat of the SDP, yet. But it's happened before and the LDs are at a very low ebb seat wise, again. There are enough voters who lean Left, but not as far as Jezza who could be pulled into a broadened LD Party. They've also been through this before within living memory - maybe they'd make their own overtures too.

    I certainly don't think it's a wacky idea. And depending on what Jezza does if he wins - well all bets are off.

    I think there is too much bitter blood for an Labour-LD defections to occur, especially after the last five years. On top of that, the people most likely to defect - those on the Right of the Labour party - are hardly likely to feel at home in a Farron led LD party. They seem to want tough lines on immigration, welfare, and defence - all of which seem completely out of step with Farron's politics. I certainly can't see John Mann defecting to the LDs.

    I think the difference between the SDP in the 80s and now, is that the gang of four were established political figures who had had successful ministerial careers. The likes of Umunna, Kendall and Creasy et al, on the other hand are still in the phase of being politically ambitious and up-and-coming and so are unlikely to risk their careers on a SDP kind of venture. If anything, staying around and hoping that the Corbyn Left fail is good for their careers - they can come in afterwards and take the initiative.
  • CornishBlueCornishBlue Posts: 840
    edited July 2015
    AndyJS said:

    The one achievement the LDs had in government was the least-needed: a fixed five year term parliament. It ought to be four years or three years like in Australia IMO. In today's fast moving world, five years seems like an age. For example, the iPad wasn't even publicly available at the time of the 2010 election, yet it seems as if it's been around for much longer than five years.

    Why connect the pace of change in mobile (smart)phone technology with that of government? What difference does it make whether the iPad was around or not at the previous general election? It's completely trivial compared to the governance of a nation, which should be about the long-term.

    If anything I'd up it to 6 years, though 5 years seems about right. The shorter the term, the less anything gets done as you're always coming in or going from an election.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653

    Ms. Apocalypse, depends on many factors. Neither side should be complacent.

    If Scotland leaves, the Conservatives would be the favoured major party south of the border, I suspect.

    If Scotland stays, the Labour-SNP threat is renewed, motivating English voters to protect their perceived national interests.

    If Scotland leaves, the Conservatives have presided over the end of the United Kingdom.

    I know which David Cameron and George Osborne should prefer!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The point was about living in a fast moving world in general.

    AndyJS said:

    The one achievement the LDs had in government was the least-needed: a fixed five year term parliament. It ought to be four years or three years like in Australia IMO. In today's fast moving world, five years seems like an age. For example, the iPad wasn't even publicly available at the time of the 2010 election, yet it seems as if it's been around for much longer than five years.

    Why connect the pace of change in mobile (smart)phone technology with that of government? What difference does it make whether the iPad was around or not at the previous general election? It's completely trivial compared to the governance of a nation, which should be about the long-term.

    If anything I'd up it to 6 years, though 5 years seems about right. The shorter the term, the less anything gets done as you're always coming in or going from an election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,804

    AndyJS said:

    One of the most attractive features of Test Cricket is/was the drama of the final day IMO. Now, because they're playing as if it's a 20/20 match, hardly any Tests are getting anywhere near the fifth day. It's going to end up being abolished at this rate.

    Nonsense.

    Some of the most dramatic tests haven't gone into the final day
    England v S Africa at the Oval, 1994. Finished on day 4, with Graeme Hick smashing 81 off 84 to lead England home by eight wickets (Alan Donald went for 8 an over).

    But everyone really enjoyed a certain Devon Malcolm giving the performance of his life the day before...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NncjEUUESU

    Or the second Lord's Test of 2000 - Dominic Cork hitting 33 in the third-day gloaming to nudge England home by 2 wickets against West Indies.

    I'm sure other people can think of more...
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782

    AndyJS said:

    Has a Test ever finished in two days before?

    Yes and I had tickets to days three and four of that match.

    England v the Windies in 2000 at Headingley
    There's a reason I always make sure I get Day 2 tickets...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    First (and obviously ironic) cheer from the Aussies in the bar, as they pass their own first innings score!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    One of the most attractive features of Test Cricket is/was the drama of the final day IMO. Now, because they're playing as if it's a 20/20 match, hardly any Tests are getting anywhere near the fifth day. It's going to end up being abolished at this rate.

    Nonsense.

    Some of the most dramatic tests haven't gone into the final day
    England v S Africa at the Oval, 1994. Finished on day 4, with Graeme Hick smashing 81 off 84 to lead England home by eight wickets (Alan Donald went for 8 an over).

    But everyone really enjoyed a certain Devon Malcolm giving the performance of his life the day before...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NncjEUUESU

    Or the second Lord's Test of 2000 - Dominic Cork hitting 33 in the third-day gloaming to nudge England home by 2 wickets against West Indies.

    I'm sure other people can think of more...
    I thought of those two and Edgbaston 2005 and Trent Bridge in the same year against the Aussies.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Australia are 18 to win with Betfair. You'd think it would be a lot higher than that.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/cricket/event?id=27458858
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    Good article. I am with Don.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    One of the most attractive features of Test Cricket is/was the drama of the final day IMO. Now, because they're playing as if it's a 20/20 match, hardly any Tests are getting anywhere near the fifth day. It's going to end up being abolished at this rate.

    Nonsense.

    Some of the most dramatic tests haven't gone into the final day
    England v S Africa at the Oval, 1994. Finished on day 4, with Graeme Hick smashing 81 off 84 to lead England home by eight wickets (Alan Donald went for 8 an over).

    But everyone really enjoyed a certain Devon Malcolm giving the performance of his life the day before...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NncjEUUESU

    Or the second Lord's Test of 2000 - Dominic Cork hitting 33 in the third-day gloaming to nudge England home by 2 wickets against West Indies.

    I'm sure other people can think of more...
    Obvious one to me is Edgbaston 2005
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    @Morris_Dancer I don't think they'll be an indyref between now and 2020. I don't see Cameron, at the very least budging. Osborne is a political opportunist though, so he may well be less reluctant to have another indyref - losing Scotland means, as you say it's much harder for Labour to win an election and I can see Osborne being a far more political PM than Cameron.
    Plato said:

    The maths of Labour climbing back up to a working maj aren't in their favour for a win in 2020.

    Labour are more than 90 seats behind the Tories. That's landslide territory.

    So unless something fairly cataclysmic happens between now and GE2020 - they aren't going to leap that tall building in a single bound no matter how bored Joe Public are with the Tories.

    Stranger things have happened before, and although Labour are 90 seats behind, the Tories have a small majority, it should be said. On top of that I think with the events I listed, there is potential for something cataclysmic to happen. I personally think Labour's best chance is make-up ground and hoping to deprive the Tories of a majority. I see a Labour win in 2025 as most likely.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Disraeli said:

    AndyJS said:

    Has a Test ever finished in two days before?

    See my replies upthread :smile:
    Thanks, should have checked.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    The new gang of four would not need to be as good in order to do as well.

    England is economically a much less left-wing and more right-wing place than it was in the early 1980s. It's easy to rationalise why over 200 constituencies voted for Foot Labour; after all, the left was still a living current in the Labour Party; unionised, working-class extraction and manufacturing jobs were still extremely common; and more people had a tradition of always voting Labour.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The Gang of Four set up a whole new Party - the SDP, it was only much later after Labour got their marbles back that it withered away, and merged with the Liberal Party.

    As I said, Farron isn't the whole LD Party - he's not as far Left as Jezza being my premise. I could see a couple of Labour MPs trying to force some issues by doing so. Afterall, we had Carswell and Voldemort move to the Kippers to make a principled point/feel more at home.

    Plato said:

    One thing that could happen - maybe - is a defection or two from Labour to LDs [Farron isn't the whole Party]

    We're in a 5yrs Parly - that's a guaranteed job for anyone who's at the end of their career and wants to make a point/shake things up.

    I don't see a repeat of the SDP, yet. But it's happened before and the LDs are at a very low ebb seat wise, again. There are enough voters who lean Left, but not as far as Jezza who could be pulled into a broadened LD Party. They've also been through this before within living memory - maybe they'd make their own overtures too.

    I certainly don't think it's a wacky idea. And depending on what Jezza does if he wins - well all bets are off.

    I think there is too much bitter blood for an Labour-LD defections to occur, especially after the last five years. On top of that, the people most likely to defect - those on the Right of the Labour party - are hardly likely to feel at home in a Farron led LD party. They seem to want tough lines on immigration, welfare, and defence - all of which seem completely out of step with Farron's politics. I certainly can't see John Mann defecting to the LDs.

    I think the difference between the SDP in the 80s and now, is that the gang of four were established political figures who had had successful ministerial careers. The likes of Umunna, Kendall and Creasy et al, on the other hand are still in the phase of being politically ambitious and up-and-coming and so are unlikely to risk their careers on a SDP kind of venture. If anything, staying around and hoping that the Corbyn Left fail is good for their careers - they can come in afterwards and take the initiative.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    Right I'm off to the water closet to inspire a fall of a wicket
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited July 2015
    Norman Smith's description of 'Blairites as a virus to whom Corbyn was the antidote' may have been medically speaking, inaccurate, but the meaning was clear. This language does not bode well for anyone left within the party deemed to be a ‘Blairite’. - It’s all getting rather ugly to be quite honestly.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Come on England... >mortal kombat< FINISH HIM >end mortal kombat<
Sign In or Register to comment.