Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
In the past, the main parties have tended to find defectors a seat somewhere else, e.g. Shaun Woodward and his butler going off to St Helens
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
In the past, the main parties have tended to find defectors a seat somewhere else, e.g. Shaun Woodward and his butler going off to St Helens
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.
Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?
IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.
Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?
IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.
Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?
IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
Couldn't any defector argue with more justice than usual that the party had abandoned the platform on which they had been elected rather than the other way around?
" That experience, however, resulted in the [Liberal Democrats] being nearly wiped out in the 2015 election. They look unlikely to be significant political players again any time soon."
Unless Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, in which case the Lib Dems will have a huge empty space to move into. All it takes is a convenient by-election in a safe Labour seat, and hey presto, it's like Eastbourne 1990 all over again. The Lib Dem victory in Eastbourne happened despite the Lib Dems being at a low level in the national opinion polls.
"My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."
I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.
She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.
She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!
It almost tempted me to pay my £3
Shame that she didn't recognise:
- it was a Tory administration that declared war on Germany - it was a Tory PM who won the war - the majority of her years of living in England have been under Tory rule
I'd be pretty thankful to the Tories in that situation.
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
Hamas are just an armed group. Terrorists, revolutionaries, insurgents, freedom fighters - the designation is entirely subjective. Most of the groups we support in Syria are worse - and those are the nicer ones.
The designation is subjective but there's a clear difference between groups which are driven to use violence in an oppressive regime that offers no alternative but are willing to talk if that alternative is offered, and groups which use violence as a means of imposing a settlement on a people.
No there isn't. The degree to which a regime is oppressive is also entirely subjective.
What utter rubbish.
It's not utter rubbish at all. We would consider armed attacks upon the Bahraini, Saudi, or Qatari regimes that could or could not harm civilians to be terrorist attacks. We would consider similar attacks on the current Syrian or previous Libyan regimes to be acts of revolution. There's no objective difference in repression (except that the Syrian regime is considerably less oppressive). The language of terrorism is geopolitical aims dressed up as moral outrage.
The question of the day is do I register for Jezza .... ?
I've just registered. Will support Kendall, as the best option for the country, and probably Jezza #2 as if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.
In my view Burnham or Cooper would resolve nothing; in 2020 we will be where we are today, and Labour still won't be an effective opposition.
I've registered too - may well go with that option myself
My order too. I suspect Kendall will be first out, but a strong showing will help the fightback. And at least I am a former Labour member!; could see myself back under a suitable leader!
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.
Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?
IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
From skimming it as far as I can tell, the only 3 situations recall applies to is if an MP has a criminal conviction, if they have been suspended from the house or if they have been caught fiddling expenses.
What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?
The Co-operative Party is a separate body which has a working agreement with Labour: the Co-op doesn't put up candidates against Labour, and Labour doesn't object to candidates identifying with both. MPs who do so will be motivated by a stronger than average belief that the way forward for industry is to encourage more co-operative enterprises (also, the Co-op may help out a bit with nominations and campaign contributions).
I'm a member of both but didn't seek the Co-op label as I couldn't honestly say I was much involved with that side of things and would really only have been doing it for the possible support.
WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O
I confess to some disappointment that this otherwise excellent piece by @Antifrank only concerns itself with recent living memory for some of the more vintage members of PB.
And whilst musing on vintage members last night Mrs JackW emitted a little memory sigh at the current Fiat 500 "little blue pill" TV advert and then cast a longing glance a moi.
You should have upgraded to the Fiat 600 - the seats reclined. And then we got a couple of 850 coupes!!!
Welcome back Jack - Whilst you have been away the Liberals have been keeping their heads down but I am worried that the Labour Party might just be thinking of growing a pair and actually take over from us as the Radical Party.
I just knew I could rely on you to provide an entirely unbiased and "Focused" appreciation.
@SamCoatesTimes: Jeremy Corbyn is in third in Bassetlaw says John Mann on Sky now. Says London joiners "are representative of very little in society" (gulp)
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.
Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?
IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
From skimming it as far as I can tell, the only 3 situations recall applies to is if an MP has a criminal conviction, if they have been suspended from the house or if they have been caught fiddling expenses.
Nothing in there about defections as I can see.
Thanks!
How unsatisfactory though. Switching party allegiances should surely be one of the main triggers.
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.
Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?
IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
From skimming it as far as I can tell, the only 3 situations recall applies to is if an MP has a criminal conviction, if they have been suspended from the house or if they have been caught fiddling expenses.
Nothing in there about defections as I can see.
Thanks!
How unsatisfactory though. Switching party allegiances should surely be one of the main triggers.
Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.
You feel the need to go disguised ?!?
Yes after my last time in a whorehouse.
The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her
'I'm that good you should be paying me'
She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.
Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
I once visited a brothel with a couple of friends, we played pool (Well me and John did) whilst our other friend used the 'services' provided. The pimp looked a strong type.
Sure, there’s a respectable case for more public spending. But it is sad that this is what the left, even on its own terms, has come to: vote for us and the government will spend more and run more stuff (or don’t vote for us, we don’t care).
In place of a vision, the left is against stuff. It’s against austerity. It’s against Tories – though mysteriously uninterested in unseating them – and it’s definitely against Tony Blair. This last is why the word “Blairites” has featured so ubiquitously in the election, despite there being so few of them, and despite the ones that do exist refusing to accept the label.
Blairites figure in Labour’s mythology the same way immigrants do in Ukip’s: as a metonym for multiple ills. Ukip does best in areas of the country where the are very few immigrants. Similarly, the Labour party, having purged itself of Blairites, talks about little else.
What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?
The Co-operative Party is a separate body which has a working agreement with Labour: the Co-op doesn't put up candidates against Labour, and Labour doesn't object to candidates identifying with both. MPs who do so will be motivated by a stronger than average belief that the way forward for industry is to encourage more co-operative enterprises (also, the Co-op may help out a bit with nominations and campaign contributions).
I'm a member of both but didn't seek the Co-op label as I couldn't honestly say I was much involved with that side of things and would really only have been doing it for the possible support.
Good afternoon young Nick.
I noted your post this morning indicating that you've moved on from seeking election to the Commons. Good luck in your future endeavours.
If you have the time might you post an overview of how you saw the final days of the election in Broxtowe ?
Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.
You feel the need to go disguised ?!?
Yes after my last time in a whorehouse.
The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her
'I'm that good you should be paying me'
She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.
Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
I once visited a brothel with a couple of friends, we played pool (Well me and John did) whilst our other friend used the 'services' provided. The pimp looked a strong type.
Sure, there’s a respectable case for more public spending. But it is sad that this is what the left, even on its own terms, has come to: vote for us and the government will spend more and run more stuff (or don’t vote for us, we don’t care).
In place of a vision, the left is against stuff. It’s against austerity. It’s against Tories – though mysteriously uninterested in unseating them – and it’s definitely against Tony Blair. This last is why the word “Blairites” has featured so ubiquitously in the election, despite there being so few of them, and despite the ones that do exist refusing to accept the label.
Blairites figure in Labour’s mythology the same way immigrants do in Ukip’s: as a metonym for multiple ills. Ukip does best in areas of the country where the are very few immigrants. Similarly, the Labour party, having purged itself of Blairites, talks about little else.
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
As Cameron's predecessor in Witney showed, defectors probably get nice safe seats elsewhere I believe, were that unlikely scenario ever to occur. The presumed pressure to resign and fight a by-election a la the UKIP examples would be tough, but presumably survivable.
Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.
You feel the need to go disguised ?!?
Yes after my last time in a whorehouse.
The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her
'I'm that good you should be paying me'
She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.
Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
I once visited a brothel with a couple of friends, we played pool (Well me and John did) whilst our other friend used the 'services' provided. The pimp looked a strong type.
Hmm it didn't seem massively British, more an EU freedom of movement exercise iirc.
I for one had never heard of the Adullamites, despite supposedly studying that period in school.
The SDP story was somewhat closer to my heart. At the time it seemed inevitable that it was going to replace the Labour party with a centre left party that cared about both people and economics. It's failure is a salutary lesson although the Labour party is massively weaker now than it was then (as indeed are all the parties except the SNP and UKIP).
The problem I see is that raised by one of yesterday's threads. The Corbyn/Labour support is concentrated in the Cities and has about 180 safe seats. This leaves very little room for another centre left party unless the Tories veer wildly to the right again. Under Cameron and Osborne they have been doing the opposite.
The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces
UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces
Well put,these modern labour politicians have it in they head that we must be the world labour party.
What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?
The Co-operative Party is a separate body which has a working agreement with Labour: the Co-op doesn't put up candidates against Labour, and Labour doesn't object to candidates identifying with both. MPs who do so will be motivated by a stronger than average belief that the way forward for industry is to encourage more co-operative enterprises (also, the Co-op may help out a bit with nominations and campaign contributions).
I'm a member of both but didn't seek the Co-op label as I couldn't honestly say I was much involved with that side of things and would really only have been doing it for the possible support.
That really sounds like a confusing and circular arrangement. They're not really separate, it seems, given they have such an agreement with Labour, so it appears to just be like a club for particular Labour members, but why does that need a 'separate' party label, it's just like someone being on a particular wing of a party just slightly more formalised?
Sure, there’s a respectable case for more public spending. But it is sad that this is what the left, even on its own terms, has come to: vote for us and the government will spend more and run more stuff (or don’t vote for us, we don’t care).
In place of a vision, the left is against stuff. It’s against austerity. It’s against Tories – though mysteriously uninterested in unseating them – and it’s definitely against Tony Blair. This last is why the word “Blairites” has featured so ubiquitously in the election, despite there being so few of them, and despite the ones that do exist refusing to accept the label.
Blairites figure in Labour’s mythology the same way immigrants do in Ukip’s: as a metonym for multiple ills. Ukip does best in areas of the country where the are very few immigrants. Similarly, the Labour party, having purged itself of Blairites, talks about little else.
But it's not true in the UKIP case. Once you account for demographics and income levels, UKIP do better in London than most places. Every time this fact about UKIP is used to claim this idea that it's people less exposed to immigration that vote UKIP, it is dismantled. Yet it is used again and again and again. It's almost as the left exists in a bubble where they do not hear arguments that go against established beliefs. I guess that explains why Jeremy Corbyn is about to become Labour leader.
Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?
Love the reply from the ad bod:
"Ian Twinn, of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, also objected saying it was "not clear" what Dame Tessa meant by "sexist", adding: "Is she asking for obesity to be normalised?""
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Leicester West has quite a large LD, Kipper and Tory vote. Not that safe for Labour, winnable but academic. Kendall will be part of the fightback.
The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces
UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Leicester West has quite a large LD, Kipper and Tory vote. Not that safe for Labour, winnable but academic. Kendall will be part of the fightback.
Not safe for Labour necessarily, it could be won by a third party, but surely off-limits for the Tories (or any new group affiliated with the Tories)?
That said, Simon Danczuk is being reckless in his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. He's going to find it hard to eat sufficient humble pie to make it easy for him to remain within the Labour whip if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected.
Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.
Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?
Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?
Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?
Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
Totally agree (and sorry for misunderstanding you in the previous thread). And not just silly but dangerous - being overweight is symptomatic of a health problem. As are most things traditionally regarded as 'ugly'. In my opinion, some people are extremely blessed, and some are plainer, but ugliness is a sign of ill health, and for that reason should not be seen as the 'new average' as many seem to be pushing for.
Being ugly is a sign of illness!? Really?? What twaddle.
Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.
The Blairites have Dan Jarvis who has positioned himself well to be the next Labour leader and the next contest could be in as little as two or three years. They'll continue to bide their time
I feel rather sorry for him, I can't help feeling his personal circumstances are colouring his commonsense - leading to rather a lot of outbursts/oversharing.
That said, Simon Danczuk is being reckless in his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. He's going to find it hard to eat sufficient humble pie to make it easy for him to remain within the Labour whip if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected.
Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?
Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?
Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?
Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
Totally agree (and sorry for misunderstanding you in the previous thread). And not just silly but dangerous - being overweight is symptomatic of a health problem. As are most things traditionally regarded as 'ugly'. In my opinion, some people are extremely blessed, and some are plainer, but ugliness is a sign of ill health, and for that reason should not be seen as the 'new average' as many seem to be pushing for.
Being ugly is a sign of illness!? Really?? What twaddle.
Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.
People who don't like high levels of immigration tend to move out of areas where there are high levels of immigration. That leaves the immigrants and people who welcome high levels of immigration, who, strangely enough, tend not to vote UKIP.
The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces
UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
No it was about MP defections, can't see it myself.
Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.
People who don't like high levels of immigration tend to move out of areas where there are high levels of immigration. That leaves the immigrants and people who welcome high levels of immigration, who, strangely enough, tend not to vote UKIP.
Well put
Its interesting to see Conservatives peddle the ridiculously easily refutable nonsense that tim used to try and mislead people with.
Look at the demographic in West Ham, East Ham & Barking, then look at the UKIP vote in Dagenham & Rainham, Hornchurch & Upminster, & Thurrock
''The Blairites have Dan Jarvis who has positioned himself well to be the next Labour leader and the next contest could be in as little as two or three years. They'll continue to bide their time.''
It's not that simple. For those two or three years the Blairites will have to toe the party line. That means defending Corbyn and his nonsense in front of press, on the doorstep. Stuff they don;t believe in and will have to row back on dramatically if Corbyn is deposed.
The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces
UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
No it was about MP defections, can't see it myself.
My proposal was for UKIP to take advantage of the chaos and get disaffected Labour WWC voters on board.
I can't see too many of them embracing Corbyn's 'let the immigrants in, and boot NATO out' policies.
"The Last Thing This Site Needs is A Ludicrous Acronym That New Posters and Lurkers Can't Understand and Even If You Think You are Being Ironic You are Not".
"The Last Thing This Site Needs is A Ludicrous Acronym That New Posters and Lurkers Can't Understand and Even If You Think You are Being Ironic You are Not".
Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?
I suspect he'll find the sudden stress of being Leader at the age of 67 - a far more demanding and high profile job - very tiring.. On the other hand he might surprise everyone and like it.
The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces
UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
No it was about MP defections, can't see it myself.
My proposal was for UKIP to take advantage of the chaos and get disaffected Labour WWC voters on board.
I can't see too many of them embracing Corbyn's 'let the immigrants in, and boot NATO out' policies.
Yes I agree. Not sure what ukip are cooking up tbh, the EU vote is centre stage, difficult to plan beyond that.
Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.
People who don't like high levels of immigration tend to move out of areas where there are high levels of immigration. That leaves the immigrants and people who welcome high levels of immigration, who, strangely enough, tend not to vote UKIP.
There may well be an element of "White flight" to Essex, but it does not account for the strong kipper support in Sunderland for example. There is no single explanation for the rise of the kippers.
Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator
TSE, it would be entirely consistent and appropriate though. They are both naysayers and they are both covered in hair. However, Incitatus was no doubt well groomed on a daily basis.
Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator
TSE, it would be entirely consistent and appropriate though. They are both naysayers and they are both covered in hair. However, Incitatus was no doubt well groomed on a daily basis.
No doubt there will be others jockeying for position!
Labour will order infiltrators' votes to be removed even after they've been cast in the leadership election, party sources have revealed.
The party will carry on vetting people right up until the September 10 voting deadline to stop 'stooges' and 'entryists' taking over the race.
Insiders say that means they will tell independent vote-counters to strip out individual ballots if they suspect foul play - for example if a Tory stooge mocks Labour by posting their paper on Twitter.
Sources insist the content of the votes themselves will remain anonymous, but say each ballot paper will still be linked to a voter's name.
That means although Labour won't know how someone has voted, Electoral Reform Services Ltd (ERS), which is organising the vote, can trace their ballot.
A Labour source told Mirror Online: "No ballot paper will go to someone who's not been verified, but the verification process goes on.
"We have big lists and we're constantly improving and updating those lists, and things may emerge once someone's received their ballot.
"We can then cancel their ballots. ERS will anonymise them but will be able to refer to the number that's been generated and remove them."
This means that Corbyn now has even more support than he had in the last YouGov poll given the higher propensity of new entrants to vote for him and unless Andy and Yvette pull a rabbit out of their hat, the entire verification exercise is a complete waste of time. A classic make-work scheme in true Labour style to herald the beginning of the Corbyn era.
Comments
BTW did you declare that you had a direct financial interest in the outcome
Tristram in Stoke Central comes a close second.
IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her
'I'm that good you should be paying me'
She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.
Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
a prediction for 2020 if Corbyn wins?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVKIFfwWRg8
Unless Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, in which case the Lib Dems will have a huge empty space to move into. All it takes is a convenient by-election in a safe Labour seat, and hey presto, it's like Eastbourne 1990 all over again. The Lib Dem victory in Eastbourne happened despite the Lib Dems being at a low level in the national opinion polls.
From skimming it as far as I can tell, the only 3 situations recall applies to is if an MP has a criminal conviction, if they have been suspended from the house or if they have been caught fiddling expenses.
Nothing in there about defections as I can see.
I'm a member of both but didn't seek the Co-op label as I couldn't honestly say I was much involved with that side of things and would really only have been doing it for the possible support.
A cunning piece, Mr. Antifrank. I wonder if the iconoclasts and iconodules of the Eastern Roman Empire would also be an apt historical comparison.
How unsatisfactory though. Switching party allegiances should surely be one of the main triggers.
He then went on to list all the elections in 2016.
Why? You vote for the person, not the party.
I noted your post this morning indicating that you've moved on from seeking election to the Commons. Good luck in your future endeavours.
If you have the time might you post an overview of how you saw the final days of the election in Broxtowe ?
Edit: Oops, about 20 minutes behind events.
I bet Tristram would get on famously with David Cameron, if he doesn;t already. Inner circle material
I for one had never heard of the Adullamites, despite supposedly studying that period in school.
The SDP story was somewhat closer to my heart. At the time it seemed inevitable that it was going to replace the Labour party with a centre left party that cared about both people and economics. It's failure is a salutary lesson although the Labour party is massively weaker now than it was then (as indeed are all the parties except the SNP and UKIP).
The problem I see is that raised by one of yesterday's threads. The Corbyn/Labour support is concentrated in the Cities and has about 180 safe seats. This leaves very little room for another centre left party unless the Tories veer wildly to the right again. Under Cameron and Osborne they have been doing the opposite.
But it's not true in the UKIP case. Once you account for demographics and income levels, UKIP do better in London than most places. Every time this fact about UKIP is used to claim this idea that it's people less exposed to immigration that vote UKIP, it is dismantled. Yet it is used again and again and again. It's almost as the left exists in a bubble where they do not hear arguments that go against established beliefs. I guess that explains why Jeremy Corbyn is about to become Labour leader.
I fully intend to 'do my bit' to try and make it happen providing Corbyn gets in.
"Ian Twinn, of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, also objected saying it was "not clear" what Dame Tessa meant by "sexist", adding: "Is she asking for obesity to be normalised?""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11797857/Jeremy-Corbyn-will-be-ousted-on-day-one-as-leader-Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk-warns.html
That said, Simon Danczuk is being reckless in his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. He's going to find it hard to eat sufficient humble pie to make it easy for him to remain within the Labour whip if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected.
Being ugly is a sign of illness!? Really?? What twaddle.
Like Caesar, I think Corbyn's legacy might last for centuries and Corbyn's surname becomes a byword for awesome leaders and Kings.
Its interesting to see Conservatives peddle the ridiculously easily refutable nonsense that tim used to try and mislead people with.
Look at the demographic in West Ham, East Ham & Barking, then look at the UKIP vote in Dagenham & Rainham, Hornchurch & Upminster, & Thurrock
How is the advert sexist? There's a shirtless bloke ad too. That's maximum sexual equality.
Unless she's arguing that the girl not being topless is sexist.
What does "JICBALHHPEITCBWIWHWNBPM" mean?
It's not that simple. For those two or three years the Blairites will have to toe the party line. That means defending Corbyn and his nonsense in front of press, on the doorstep. Stuff they don;t believe in and will have to row back on dramatically if Corbyn is deposed.
Some will I guess, some won't.
I can't see too many of them embracing Corbyn's 'let the immigrants in, and boot NATO out' policies.
"The Last Thing This Site Needs is A Ludicrous Acronym That New Posters and Lurkers Can't Understand and Even If You Think You are Being Ironic You are Not".
My guess is he'll retire from ill health..
Admittedly, his career ended when he got javelined to death at the Battle of Ipsus, but all political careers end in failure.
@SamCoatesTimes: Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process
Corbyn wouldn't be on the ballot without the other 3's supporters backing him.
Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/new-poll-bernie-sanders-ahead-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire
'Dear Labour, it's not fair. Because we're going to lose, using a system under which we were happy to win.'
Well, if they want to drive a few more voters towards Corbyn...
That would be fun!
Basically this has become one big job-creation scheme for 78 people who are supposed to be "conducting" these checks.
But these numbers are staggering: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-remove-infiltrators-votes-after-6240207
This means that Corbyn now has even more support than he had in the last YouGov poll given the higher propensity of new entrants to vote for him and unless Andy and Yvette pull a rabbit out of their hat, the entire verification exercise is a complete waste of time. A classic make-work scheme in true Labour style to herald the beginning of the Corbyn era.