NB IIRC IDS was not in the SC. Enough acronyms? 'Howard briefed against IDS'. He did not; he was very careful not to. I think he foresaw the role he would have to play.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
Apologies for bringing this up again, but I think I'm going mad. After SeanT posted the stuff about the murders in Sweden I googled it and could only find reference to it on Breitbart. Tonight, however, I found this page on the BBC website:
It's dated August 13, but I swear I couldn't find anything last time I looked. Is there anyway of checking the validity of a date on a website? I must admit, I thought this incident occurred earlier this week, not last week, so maybe I just didn't search hard enough for it.
I definitely saw that article a few days ago. Sunday or Monday IIRC.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
I frankly still think they are both too old and too tainted (a few alleged anonymous briefings don't really stack up against use of language like 'morons' attached to a name and face)!
The value bet there looks to me to be Tom Watson. Even if he loses the Deputy Leadership, he's likely to be a big hitter in a Corbyn shadow cabinet (let's face it, he's not going to worry about the leader's principles or policies) and he's also by far the most aggressive parliamentary performer Labour have with the fall of Balls. As deputy leader he would be a shoo-in - as say, Shadow Defence Secretary or Shadow Home Secretary he would be a formidable candidate.
OK, so people may not like him, and he's controversial. But for a party in the mess Labour will be after 18-24 months of Corbyn, I think they would go for clarity, youth and aggression over age and muddle.
He wouldn't be Howard to Corbyn's IDS, but he could be Macmillan to Corbyn's Eden, or Bonar Law to Corbyn's Balfour.
I've also received the invite to a drink with Andy that you referenced earlier. Colchester seems a bit of a trek to get to. If it was Yvette, then I may make the effort.
There's another bash with Andy in London!
Sunil, When and where? And talking of bashes. Is there a Dirty Dicks gathering in the not too distant future?
24th August (next Monday). Doors open at 6.30pm for a 7pm start, at: St Pancras Parish Church, Euston Road, London, NW1 2BA.
EDIT - I passed by there a couple of weeks ago!
Cheers mate, do you need to register or just rock up at the door?
Never complain about being green. As Kermit the Frog taught us, it isn't easy.
Edited extra bit: ha, bet you're glad you stayed up to watch the results roll in
I am on *this* leadership election. The only way I lose is if the whole thing is called off, the whole thing is re-run and new entrants come in.
I think the chances of that are now minuscule.
PS: I'm very lucky my mate - who ran the election party - set up a betting station for me at his desktop PC, moved right into the living room next to the TV as the results came in!
I am still reflecting on how I got the general election so wrong. I had completely discounted the chance of an overall majority.
But don't worry: you got so many other things right, and in your analysis, you put the rest of us to shame.
The most accurate poster - and by some measure - in predicting the election was the now (disgracefully) banned "AudreyAnne". I wonder if she (he?) is back with us in a different guise.
Call me chicken.. But I've traded my book to an all-green position now with Corbyn netting me £185, Kendall £200, and Burnham/Cooper a tenner each. I'm -640 on the rest of the field but view that as very low risk.
I was at +£500 on Corbyn at one point but got cold feet and couldn't afford to drop a grand if he just fell short.
The GE has taught me there are no dead certs.
I don't think that the hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporters will be put off by a few obvious smears by the usual suspects, who rightly see an establishment media assault as a good indication the target is doing something right.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
I frankly still think they are both too old and too tainted (a few alleged anonymous briefings don't really stack up against use of language like 'morons' attached to a name and face)!
The value bet there looks to me to be Tom Watson. Even if he loses the Deputy Leadership, he's likely to be a big hitter in a Corbyn shadow cabinet (let's face it, he's not going to worry about the leader's principles or policies) and he's also by far the most aggressive parliamentary performer Labour have with the fall of Balls. As deputy leader he would be a shoo-in - as say, Shadow Defence Secretary or Shadow Home Secretary he would be a formidable candidate.
OK, so people may not like him, and he's controversial. But for a party in the mess Labour will be after 18-24 months of Corbyn, I think they would go for clarity, youth and aggression over age and muddle.
He wouldn't be Howard to Corbyn's IDS, but he could be Macmillan to Corbyn's Eden, or Bonar Law to Corbyn's Balfour.
Apologies for bringing this up again, but I think I'm going mad. After SeanT posted the stuff about the murders in Sweden I googled it and could only find reference to it on Breitbart. Tonight, however, I found this page on the BBC website:
It's dated August 13, but I swear I couldn't find anything last time I looked. Is there anyway of checking the validity of a date on a website? I must admit, I thought this incident occurred earlier this week, not last week, so maybe I just didn't search hard enough for it.
I definitely saw that article a few days ago. Sunday or Monday IIRC.
It definitely existed at 10PM on August 13, although I'm not sure what timezone that is.
Apologies for bringing this up again, but I think I'm going mad. After SeanT posted the stuff about the murders in Sweden I googled it and could only find reference to it on Breitbart. Tonight, however, I found this page on the BBC website:
It's dated August 13, but I swear I couldn't find anything last time I looked. Is there anyway of checking the validity of a date on a website? I must admit, I thought this incident occurred earlier this week, not last week, so maybe I just didn't search hard enough for it.
I definitely saw that article a few days ago. Sunday or Monday IIRC.
Ah, okay - I wonder if what's really gone on is that the guy's so desperate to stay in Sweden that he's committed murder and seriously injured himself in an attempt to stop the deportation. Either way, it deserved more coverage than it's had.
I got my vote and manifesto booklet today. Burnham is the only one who doesn't say anything silly about the Tories.
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
LabourList @LabourList 31s31 seconds ago Former TUC President Roger Lyons says Tessa’s One London vision is exactly what working people need http://ow.ly/R6J8X
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
I frankly still think they are both too old and too tainted (a few alleged anonymous briefings don't really stack up against use of language like 'morons' attached to a name and face)!
The value bet there looks to me to be Tom Watson. Even if he loses the Deputy Leadership, he's likely to be a big hitter in a Corbyn shadow cabinet (let's face it, he's not going to worry about the leader's principles or policies) and he's also by far the most aggressive parliamentary performer Labour have with the fall of Balls. As deputy leader he would be a shoo-in - as say, Shadow Defence Secretary or Shadow Home Secretary he would be a formidable candidate.
OK, so people may not like him, and he's controversial. But for a party in the mess Labour will be after 18-24 months of Corbyn, I think they would go for clarity, youth and aggression over age and muddle.
He wouldn't be Howard to Corbyn's IDS, but he could be Macmillan to Corbyn's Eden, or Bonar Law to Corbyn's Balfour.
Watson could never be a unity figure as Blairites loathe him unlike Johnson or Beckett and to compare him to Macmillan or Bonar Law is laughable!
Beckett called herself a moron under pressure, she has not said anything critical of Corbyn as far as I can see
Despite loathing Tom Watson with a rare passion and thinking he's voter repellent, he'd be a tricky person to face in the HoC as he's so bombastic.
Anyone who could describe Michael Gove as 'a miserable little pipsqueak of a man' and shout down the Deputy Speaker would be a formidable opponent across the despatch box and definitely perk up party morale. Whether it would do any good with swing voters is another question.
I got my vote and manifesto booklet today. Burnham is the only one who doesn't say anything silly about the Tories.
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
Apologies for bringing this up again, but I think I'm going mad. After SeanT posted the stuff about the murders in Sweden I googled it and could only find reference to it on Breitbart. Tonight, however, I found this page on the BBC website:
It's dated August 13, but I swear I couldn't find anything last time I looked. Is there anyway of checking the validity of a date on a website? I must admit, I thought this incident occurred earlier this week, not last week, so maybe I just didn't search hard enough for it.
I definitely saw that article a few days ago. Sunday or Monday IIRC.
Ah, okay - I wonder if what's really gone on is that the guy's so desperate to stay in Sweden that he's committed murder and seriously injured himself in an attempt to stop the deportation. Either way, it deserved more coverage than it's had.
He lost his case against deportation back to Italy. Not surprising if he flipped on hearing the decision since life as an immigrant in Sweden is about a million times more comfortable than in Italy.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
Call me chicken.. But I've traded my book to an all-green position now with Corbyn netting me £185, Kendall £200, and Burnham/Cooper a tenner each. I'm -640 on the rest of the field but view that as very low risk. I was at +£500 on Corbyn at one point but got cold feet and couldn't afford to drop a grand if he just fell short. The GE has taught me there are no dead certs.
Yes but Miliband was not manufacturing his own electorate was he. Go all in, yer wus!
PS someone made a joke on TV the other night on the subject of Dave Banana and Ed Stone which went something on the lines of, he would be more likely to vote for Glenn Millerband than either of them.
To be fair it does look like Ed's boarded a plane and disappeared without trace.
Despite loathing Tom Watson with a rare passion and thinking he's voter repellent, he'd be a tricky person to face in the HoC as he's so bombastic.
Anyone who could describe Michael Gove as 'a miserable little pipsqueak of a man' and shout down the Deputy Speaker would be a formidable opponent across the despatch box and definitely perk up party morale. Whether it would do any good with swing voters is another question.
Tom Watson as deputy leader would be interesting. He's tried to be a master of the dark arts, but has proved less than competent at it. Like the previous master, Mandelson, he has had to resign from the front bench twice, except in his case it was over disloyalty and internal party machinations.
Worse, he was involved in the Falkirk scandal, which heralded Scottish Labour's descent to electoral oblivion.
Electing him deputy might well be a worse move than electing Corbyn as leader. He's a UXB.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
Watson could never be a unity figure as Blairites loathe him unlike Johnson or Beckett and to compare him to Macmillan or Bonar Law is laughable!
Bonar Law was widely loathed too. He took over a riven party with both factions hating him. He was nearly toppled eighteen months after he took over the leadership in a putsch backed by the Cecils. That's one reason why he went to such extraordinary lengths to support the Ulster militants - it was the one thing all the Unionists agreed on. If it had not been for the First World War, the odds were he would have led the Unionists back to power, but the odds were all against his keeping it for very long. His elder statesman persona, that proved so important in 1922, was largely forged by his work during the war. And don't forget, even in 1922 almost all of Lloyd George's former cabinet refused to serve under him.
Macmillan was not trusted by the left of the Tory party. He was seen as too Whiggish, too self-serving, too arrogant. But they were willing to work with someone decisive, like Macmillan, ahead of somebody they liked and trusted but could never make up his mind (Butler) because they believed the situation needed clarity of thought and purpose.
So I think the parallel stands. It's not a question of whether there is anybody good out there - because there isn't. It's a question of who would be the best candidate under the circumstances. For all the reasons I have outlined, I do not think either Beckett or Johnson are plausible candidates (the mere fact that a septuagenarian failure like Beckett is being mentioned is a fair indication of the weakness of the field). So I think Watson would be plausible as Labour leader in 2020, and that therefore looks the value bet.
Despite loathing Tom Watson with a rare passion and thinking he's voter repellent, he'd be a tricky person to face in the HoC as he's so bombastic.
Anyone who could describe Michael Gove as 'a miserable little pipsqueak of a man' and shout down the Deputy Speaker would be a formidable opponent across the despatch box and definitely perk up party morale. Whether it would do any good with swing voters is another question.
I see TW very much in the EdB mode: cracking Leader of the Opposition as he'd wind up the Tories no end. But totally non-credible as an alternative PM. Still, better than EdM. The 2010 failure was to pick neither the best alternative PM (DM) or the best LOTO (EdB).
This time round I see YC as the best alternative PM (just, and more as a least-worst option - so sad that the TB-GB wars killed of a generation of Labour's best talent) and I guess JC as the best LOTO (on the grounds that the Tories have never faced anyone anything like him so might not know how to deal with him).
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
Surely the immediate post-Corbyn leader will be the Deputy to be elected alongside him...
Tom Watson for Labour Leader... now there's a thought.
Not if the replacement is unopposed
That depends if JC flat out quits before the election of the replacement like EdM did. If he does, the deputy becomes leader for the interim. Though how that would work out if the deputy stood in the election is beyond me right now.
Watson could never be a unity figure as Blairites loathe him unlike Johnson or Beckett and to compare him to Macmillan or Bonar Law is laughable!
Bonar Law was widely loathed too. He took over a riven party with both factions hating him. He was nearly toppled eighteen months after he took over the leadership in a putsch backed by the Cecils. That's one reason why he went to such extraordinary lengths to support the Ulster militants - it was the one thing all the Unionists agreed on. If it had not been for the First World War, the odds were he would have led the Unionists back to power, but the odds were all against his keeping it for very long. His elder statesman persona, that proved so important in 1922, was largely forged by his work during the war. And don't forget, even in 1922 almost all of Lloyd George's former cabinet refused to serve under him.
Macmillan was not trusted by the left of the Tory party. He was seen as too Whiggish, too self-serving, too arrogant. But they were willing to work with someone decisive, like Macmillan, ahead of somebody they liked and trusted but could never make up his mind (Butler) because they believed the situation needed clarity of thought and purpose.
So I think the parallel stands. It's not a question of whether there is anybody good out there - because there isn't. It's a question of who would be the best candidate under the circumstances. For all the reasons I have outlined, I do not think either Beckett or Johnson are plausible candidates (the mere fact that a septuagenarian failure like Beckett is being mentioned is a fair indication of the weakness of the field). So I think Watson would be plausible as Labour leader in 2020, and that therefore looks the value bet.
I got my vote and manifesto booklet today. Burnham is the only one who doesn't say anything silly about the Tories.
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
If you believe everything you read in a manifesto, you must be green and naive indeed. Burnham sounds like a zombie and looks and acts like a zombie, and as I have written before - a dirty looking zombie at that.
Nevertheless, welcome @ThreeQuidder, to the PB fray and long may you stay.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
Surely the immediate post-Corbyn leader will be the Deputy to be elected alongside him...
Tom Watson for Labour Leader... now there's a thought.
Not if the replacement is unopposed
What about a new unity candidate to step in after Corbyn is forced out from the mounting piles of smelly stuff?
Step forward Alan Johnson. Would save Labour and get the party to 2020 without massive splits.
AJ has never shown the slightest interest in becoming leader, though. If that's genuine (and I can't see how it isn't given the various chances he's had in different circumstances to become leader) he's off the table as an option.
Progressive Jews come out for Corbyn, and against the Jewish Chronicle. http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142553/anti-israel-activists-attack-jc-challenging-jeremy-corbyn "We do not accept that you speak on behalf of progressive Jews in this country. You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong. "There is something deeply unpleasant and dishonest about your McCarthyite guilt by association technique..."
Despite loathing Tom Watson with a rare passion and thinking he's voter repellent, he'd be a tricky person to face in the HoC as he's so bombastic.
Anyone who could describe Michael Gove as 'a miserable little pipsqueak of a man' and shout down the Deputy Speaker would be a formidable opponent across the despatch box and definitely perk up party morale. Whether it would do any good with swing voters is another question.
I see TW very much in the EdB mode: cracking Leader of the Opposition as he'd wind up the Tories no end. But totally non-credible as an alternative PM. Still, better than EdM. The 2010 failure was to pick neither the best alternative PM (DM) or the best LOTO (EdB).
This time round I see YC as the best alternative PM (just, and more as a least-worst option - so sad that the TB-GB wars killed of a generation of Labour's best talent) and I guess JC as the best LOTO (on the grounds that the Tories have never faced anyone anything like him so might not know how to deal with him).
The candidates are very hit and miss - I've had blurb from JC and Watson inc two emails, nothing from the rest. Not even an email from Kendall or Yvette.
Since I've now voted, it's all a bit academic - their campaigns are piss poor at getting off the starting blocks.
Despite loathing Tom Watson with a rare passion and thinking he's voter repellent, he'd be a tricky person to face in the HoC as he's so bombastic.
Anyone who could describe Michael Gove as 'a miserable little pipsqueak of a man' and shout down the Deputy Speaker would be a formidable opponent across the despatch box and definitely perk up party morale. Whether it would do any good with swing voters is another question.
Tom Watson as deputy leader would be interesting. He's tried to be a master of the dark arts, but has proved less than competent at it. Like the previous master, Mandelson, he has had to resign from the front bench twice, except in his case it was over disloyalty and internal party machinations.
Worse, he was involved in the Falkirk scandal, which heralded Scottish Labour's descent to electoral oblivion.
Electing him deputy might well be a worse move than electing Corbyn as leader. He's a UXB.
He is also of course the man who came up with the brilliant idea of diverting activists from Morley and Outwood to saturate Sheffield Hallam in the hope of taking it, which worked so well.
I'm not saying he'd be a good leader - he wouldn't. But he might just be the right man in the right place at the right time.
(Alan Johnson will be 70 in 2020. The last 70 year old leader to contest an election was Foot in 1983 - and before that, Attlee and Davies in 1955. Indeed, Jo Grimond was only 63 when he had his second spell as Liberal leader. While Johnson is definitely a better candidate than any on offer, I think his time has now passed.)
I got my vote and manifesto booklet today. Burnham is the only one who doesn't say anything silly about the Tories.
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
If you believe everything you read in a manifesto, you must be green and naive indeed. Burnham sounds like a zombie and looks and acts like a zombie, and as I have written before - a dirty looking zombie at that.
Nevertheless, welcome @ThreeQuidder, to the PB fray and long may you stay.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
The market is leader at next election, not any kind of temporary thing (which would be the deputy leader I suspect). If you fancy Johnson he is available at 25s. Though I think it worthy of note that Tony Blair returning as leader is posted at lower odds than Owen Jones.
I've also received the invite to a drink with Andy that you referenced earlier. Colchester seems a bit of a trek to get to. If it was Yvette, then I may make the effort.
There's another bash with Andy in London!
Sunil, When and where? And talking of bashes. Is there a Dirty Dicks gathering in the not too distant future?
24th August (next Monday). Doors open at 6.30pm for a 7pm start, at: St Pancras Parish Church, Euston Road, London, NW1 2BA.
EDIT - I passed by there a couple of weeks ago!
Cheers mate, do you need to register or just rock up at the door?
I got my vote and manifesto booklet today. Burnham is the only one who doesn't say anything silly about the Tories.
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
If you believe everything you read in a manifesto, you must be green and naive indeed. Burnham sounds like a zombie and looks and acts like a zombie, and as I have written before - a dirty looking zombie at that.
Nevertheless, welcome @ThreeQuidder, to the PB fray and long may you stay.
Thank you!
No, I don't take manifestos at face value. But each of JC, YC and LK said something at variance with the reality of today or the history of the past that makes me think that *if they really believe that* it would mean I couldn't in good conscience vote for them. AB didn't.
Progressive Jews come out for Corbyn, and against the Jewish Chronicle. http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142553/anti-israel-activists-attack-jc-challenging-jeremy-corbyn "We do not accept that you speak on behalf of progressive Jews in this country. You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong. "There is something deeply unpleasant and dishonest about your McCarthyite guilt by association technique..."
Progressive Jews come out for Corbyn, and against the Jewish Chronicle. http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142553/anti-israel-activists-attack-jc-challenging-jeremy-corbyn "We do not accept that you speak on behalf of progressive Jews in this country. You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong. "There is something deeply unpleasant and dishonest about your McCarthyite guilt by association technique..."
Most of the signatories are well known Israel hating Jews. So what else is new? Progressives; my arse!!
The market is leader at next election, not any kind of temporary thing (which would be the deputy leader I suspect). If you fancy Johnson he is available at 25s. Though I think it worthy of note that Tony Blair returning as leader is posted at lower odds than Owen Jones.
I got my vote and manifesto booklet today. Burnham is the only one who doesn't say anything silly about the Tories.
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
If you believe everything you read in a manifesto, you must be green and naive indeed. Burnham sounds like a zombie and looks and acts like a zombie, and as I have written before - a dirty looking zombie at that.
Nevertheless, welcome @ThreeQuidder, to the PB fray and long may you stay.
Thank you!
No, I don't take manifestos at face value. But each of JC, YC and LK said something at variance with the reality of today or the history of the past that makes me think that *if they really believe that* it would mean I couldn't in good conscience vote for them. AB didn't.
Despite loathing Tom Watson with a rare passion and thinking he's voter repellent, he'd be a tricky person to face in the HoC as he's so bombastic.
Anyone who could describe Michael Gove as 'a miserable little pipsqueak of a man' and shout down the Deputy Speaker would be a formidable opponent across the despatch box and definitely perk up party morale. Whether it would do any good with swing voters is another question.
I see TW very much in the EdB mode: cracking Leader of the Opposition as he'd wind up the Tories no end. But totally non-credible as an alternative PM. Still, better than EdM. The 2010 failure was to pick neither the best alternative PM (DM) or the best LOTO (EdB).
This time round I see YC as the best alternative PM (just, and more as a least-worst option - so sad that the TB-GB wars killed of a generation of Labour's best talent) and I guess JC as the best LOTO (on the grounds that the Tories have never faced anyone anything like him so might not know how to deal with him).
My instinct before was either:
LK, JC, YC, AB - or LK, YC, AB, JC - depending on how much JC is determined to lead Britain out of the civilised world and towards Putin et al. I see LK as inexperienced (not her faut of course) but actually living in the real world and taking Labour in the right direction; AB as a repeat of EdM; and YC as a slight variant on GB - though hopefully in better circumstances.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
The market is leader at next election, not any kind of temporary thing (which would be the deputy leader I suspect). If you fancy Johnson he is available at 25s. Though I think it worthy of note that Tony Blair returning as leader is posted at lower odds than Owen Jones.
Johnson is a reasonable outside bet to lead Labour in 2020 if Corbyn wins next month
Call me chicken.. But I've traded my book to an all-green position now with Corbyn netting me £185, Kendall £200, and Burnham/Cooper a tenner each. I'm -640 on the rest of the field but view that as very low risk.
I was at +£500 on Corbyn at one point but got cold feet and couldn't afford to drop a grand if he just fell short.
The GE has taught me there are no dead certs.
I don't think that the hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporters will be put off by a few obvious smears by the usual suspects, who rightly see an establishment media assault as a good indication the target is doing something right.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit, you may well be right. Sadly, however, a combination of that outcome and the labelling of non-believers as 'Tories' may well give ordinary people the impression that only 'Tories' see anything amiss with the stories that are now surfacing. Are Labour going to be in the business of actively encouraging people to vote Conservative?
There are many more male MPs, and even more so until recent times, and there has only been two competitive Labour leadership elections since the mid-90s.
The quality of female leadership candidates hasn't been high. The best of the bunch has been Yvette Cooper this election and Maragret Beckett in 1994, and it's tough to argue either really deserved to win over their male counterparts.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there's an "old boys club" issue involved as well.
And, probably controversially, I've long wondered whether if there might be an underlying systemic problem with selection - maybe the qualities and characteristics required to become a female MPs and reach the front-bench equally make it hard for them to become party leader.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
I got my vote and manifesto booklet today. Burnham is the only one who doesn't say anything silly about the Tories.
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
If you believe everything you read in a manifesto, you must be green and naive indeed. Burnham sounds like a zombie and looks and acts like a zombie, and as I have written before - a dirty looking zombie at that.
Nevertheless, welcome @ThreeQuidder, to the PB fray and long may you stay.
How do you know that 3quidder is not an entryist?
I got past the stringent checks...(!)
In all seriousness, I haven't always voted Labour. I didn't in May - didn't think I could support the local candidate who had been more than a bit of a prat when leader/deputy (can't remember or be bothered to check now!) of the local council - but I did in a parliamentary by election in the last parliament.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
Surely the immediate post-Corbyn leader will be the Deputy to be elected alongside him...
Tom Watson for Labour Leader... now there's a thought.
Not if the replacement is unopposed
That depends if JC flat out quits before the election of the replacement like EdM did. If he does, the deputy becomes leader for the interim. Though how that would work out if the deputy stood in the election is beyond me right now.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
The market is leader at next election, not any kind of temporary thing (which would be the deputy leader I suspect). If you fancy Johnson he is available at 25s. Though I think it worthy of note that Tony Blair returning as leader is posted at lower odds than Owen Jones.
"Leader after next (excluding acting)" would be a fun one, but setting the odds would be, um, challenging...!
There's just something irresistible about her voice.
TBH, I stuck her first because she's got no charisma or looks to play on - I felt she must be sensible or geniune. Watson second as he's revolting, Flint as half useful in 3rd, Bradshaw for being the opposite of Angela and Creasy last as she was once rude to me on Twitter.
The candidates are very hit and miss - I've had blurb from JC and Watson inc two emails, nothing from the rest. Not even an email from Kendall or Yvette.
Since I've now voted, it's all a bit academic - their campaigns are piss poor at getting off the starting blocks.
Okay, so in 48 hours all the sentiment is now moving against Corbyn, but the Betfair price has barely moved. 1.38 the mid point right about now.
I usually bet only Arytons on politics bets, just for fun rather than to pay the mortgage. But I'm on at 100/1 here so Jeremy had better bloody win me the grand now!
Watson could never be a unity figure as Blairites loathe him unlike Johnson or Beckett and to compare him to Macmillan or Bonar Law is laughable!
Bonar Law was widely loathed too. He took over a riven party with both factions hating him. He was nearly toppled eighteen months after he took over the leadership in a putsch backed by the Cecils. That's one reason why he went to such extraordinary lengths to support the Ulster militants - it was the one thing all the Unionists agreed on. If it had not been for the First World War, the odds were he would have led the Unionists back to power, but the odds were all against his keeping it for very long. His elder statesman persona, that proved so important in 1922, was largely forged by his work during the war. And don't forget, even in 1922 almost all of Lloyd George's former cabinet refused to serve under him.
Macmillan was not trusted by the left of the Tory party. He was seen as too Whiggish, too self-serving, too arrogant. But they were willing to work with someone decisive, like Macmillan, ahead of somebody they liked and trusted but could never make up his mind (Butler) because they believed the situation needed clarity of thought and purpose.
So I think the parallel stands. It's not a question of whether there is anybody good out there - because there isn't. It's a question of who would be the best candidate under the circumstances. For all the reasons I have outlined, I do not think either Beckett or Johnson are plausible candidates (the mere fact that a septuagenarian failure like Beckett is being mentioned is a fair indication of the weakness of the field). So I think Watson would be plausible as Labour leader in 2020, and that therefore looks the value bet.
Bonar Law had been leader since 1910 when he almost won, a totally different story. Macmillan won one of the largest Tory victories in history, again, a totally different story from Watson. Watson has next to zero chance of leading Labour in 2020, he is too divisive for starters as he consistently undermined Blair. No, Beckett or Johnson it will have to be, the only candidates experienced enough and acceptable enough to Blairities, Brownites and the Left to fit the bill
Call me chicken.. But I've traded my book to an all-green position now with Corbyn netting me £185, Kendall £200, and Burnham/Cooper a tenner each. I'm -640 on the rest of the field but view that as very low risk.
I was at +£500 on Corbyn at one point but got cold feet and couldn't afford to drop a grand if he just fell short.
The GE has taught me there are no dead certs.
I don't think that the hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporters will be put off by a few obvious smears by the usual suspects, who rightly see an establishment media assault as a good indication the target is doing something right.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit, you may well be right. Sadly, however, a combination of that outcome and the labelling of non-believers as 'Tories' may well give ordinary people the impression that only 'Tories' see anything amiss with the stories that are now surfacing. Are Labour going to be in the business of actively encouraging people to vote Conservative?
Call me chicken.. But I've traded my book to an all-green position now with Corbyn netting me £185, Kendall £200, and Burnham/Cooper a tenner each. I'm -640 on the rest of the field but view that as very low risk.
I was at +£500 on Corbyn at one point but got cold feet and couldn't afford to drop a grand if he just fell short.
The GE has taught me there are no dead certs.
I don't think that the hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporters will be put off by a few obvious smears by the usual suspects, who rightly see an establishment media assault as a good indication the target is doing something right.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit, you may well be right. Sadly, however, a combination of that outcome and the labelling of non-believers as 'Tories' may well give ordinary people the impression that only 'Tories' see anything amiss with the stories that are now surfacing. Are Labour going to be in the business of actively encouraging people to vote Conservative?
They are hardly 'stories that are now surfacing'. Corbyn is well known as a long time activist on behalf of Palestinian rights, a very worthy cause given the hideous oppression of the people there. Just because some of his fellow travellers in this broad church hold some unpleasant views has no bearing on Corbyn, and anyone sane can see that. Not everyone is as thick as PB Tories, you do have to remember.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
The market is leader at next election, not any kind of temporary thing (which would be the deputy leader I suspect). If you fancy Johnson he is available at 25s. Though I think it worthy of note that Tony Blair returning as leader is posted at lower odds than Owen Jones.
"Leader after next (excluding acting)" would be a fun one, but setting the odds would be, um, challenging...!
Me and @Rottenborough are already in that market with a private bet
Okay, so in 48 hours all the sentiment is now moving against Corbyn, but the Betfair price has barely moved. 1.38 the mid point right about now.
I usually bet only Arytons on politics bets, just for fun rather than to pay the mortgage. But I'm on at 100/1 here so Jeremy had better bloody win me the grand now!
We had a long lag when he was clearly emerging as the favourite as well. Also, don't forget a huge number of the electorate have probably already voted, and the ones who were enthused by Corbyn were probably the ones who voted first anyway, rather than, 'Ooooh, I must vote for one of the idiots who doesn't seem to have a clue what they're doing. Maybe I'll get round to it after watching Neighbours.'
They may wish they hadn't given the stories now emerging, although as we can see they don't seem to be affecting the his admirers much, but their votes will still count.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
Okay, so in 48 hours all the sentiment is now moving against Corbyn, but the Betfair price has barely moved. 1.38 the mid point right about now.
I usually bet only Arytons on politics bets, just for fun rather than to pay the mortgage. But I'm on at 100/1 here so Jeremy had better bloody win me the grand now!
The Unite numbers/sentiment sounded fantastic for him though.
Betfair cricket odds - Eng 7/5, Aus 8/5, Draw 4/1. Possibly a spot of rain in the morning, and showers forecast for the weekend. Might wait for the toss, can't see the value there at all.
In all seriousness, I haven't always voted Labour. I didn't in May - didn't think I could support the local candidate who had been more than a bit of a prat when leader/deputy (can't remember or be bothered to check now!) of the local council - but I did in a parliamentary by election in the last parliament.
A brief perusal of the comments on various articles on Labour Uncut, a blog clearly vehemently opposed to Jeremy Corbyn, tends to suggest that those inclined to support him are impervious to any suggestions that his character is questionable, despite mounting evidence of less than savoury associations with numerous undesirables. They simply aren't interested.
The majority are attracted by his plain speaking, his vision, his clarity of purpose and care not a jot about who he may have stood beside or what they may have said about British soldiers, homosexuals, Jews or the British state. He could have signed a Standing Order paying a tenner a month to Hezbollah and they wouldn't bat an eyelid.
And these are the people who will be sending off their ballots with a first preference for JC and have no interest in an AV for any of the others. And they seem to outnumber everyone else.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the next Leader of the Opposition will be the Rt Hon Member for Islington North. God help the Labour Party.
Okay, so in 48 hours all the sentiment is now moving against Corbyn, but the Betfair price has barely moved. 1.38 the mid point right about now.
I usually bet only Arytons on politics bets, just for fun rather than to pay the mortgage. But I'm on at 100/1 here so Jeremy had better bloody win me the grand now!
So basically the supposed scandal is that Corbyn has met some unpleasant people in the course of meeting thousands of people whilst campaigning for the rights of a horribly oppressed people, who just happen to be being oppressed by a close friend of much of the UK establishment. And this is basically all they have on the guy. I don't think this is going to wash with the 70% of the UK who have a negative opinion of Israel (I'd say it's quite likely the remaining 30% are closely correlated with Tory supporters anyway, given their historical approval of racist, oppressive regimes)
Betfair cricket odds - Eng 7/5, Aus 8/5, Draw 4/1. Possibly a spot of rain in the morning, and showers forecast for the weekend. Might wait for the toss, can't see the value there at all.
After Trent Bridge I lamented the good old days of 3, 4, 5 years ago when laying the draw was (subject to raid being forecast) still a rock solid strategy with a decent return...
I've also received the invite to a drink with Andy that you referenced earlier. Colchester seems a bit of a trek to get to. If it was Yvette, then I may make the effort.
There's another bash with Andy in London!
Sunil, When and where? And talking of bashes. Is there a Dirty Dicks gathering in the not too distant future?
24th August (next Monday). Doors open at 6.30pm for a 7pm start, at: St Pancras Parish Church, Euston Road, London, NW1 2BA.
EDIT - I passed by there a couple of weeks ago!
Cheers mate, do you need to register or just rock up at the door?
Bonar Law had been leader since 1910 when he almost won, a totally different story. Macmillan won one of the largest Tory victories in history, again, a totally different story from Watson. Watson has next to zero chance of leading Labour in 2020, he is too divisive for starters as he consistently undermined Blair. No, Beckett or Johnson it will have to be, the only candidates experienced enough and acceptable enough to Blairities, Brownites and the Left to fit the bill
Yes - but I'm not talking about what they did. I'm talking about how they were perceived. Bonar Law was from 1911 (not 1910) the leader of the largest party in a hung parliament, at a time when the Liberals were imploding over Ireland. He had in theory a terrific hand to play, and there are not a few historians, including Conservative ones, who think that because of the factional fighting in his party he misplayed it badly. Macmillan said, when kissing hands, that he might not last six weeks. But he did. Because he was the right man in the right place.
I really don't think you are grasping the key point. Beckett and Johnson are too old, too controversial, too tainted by the remarks they have made and will doubtless continue to make, and they are STILL hated by large sections of the party (you think Blairites hate Watson? Ask the left how they feel about Johnson - the word 'traitor' comes up a lot. There are far more on the left than there are Blairites, even allowing for some chaos in the ranks).
So again, the deputy leader or senior shadow cabinet figure, however rude, however arrogant, however bad his campaigning skills, is a likelier candidate to replace Corbyn than those two.
If I am wrong, I will happily admit it three years from now. But the happiest person of all would be Cameron's successor.
A brief perusal of the comments on various articles on Labour Uncut, a blog clearly vehemently opposed to Jeremy Corbyn, tends to suggest that those inclined to support him are impervious to any suggestions that his character is questionable, despite mounting evidence of less than savoury associations with numerous undesirables. They simply aren't interested.
The majority are attracted by his plain speaking, his vision, his clarity of purpose and care not a jot about who he may have stood beside or what they may have said about British soldiers, homosexuals, Jews or the British state. He could have signed a Standing Order paying a tenner a month to Hezbollah and they wouldn't bat an eyelid.
And these are the people who will be sending off their ballots with a first preference for JC and have no interest in an AV for any of the others. And they seem to outnumber everyone else.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the next Leader of the Opposition will be the Rt Hon Member for Islington North. God help the Labour Party.
To be fair, those who vote JC 1st preference don't need to express subsequent preferences: there is approximately zero chance he'll fall outside the top 2.
I think the smears against JC seem too much like smears to gain much traction. Yeah, he's talked to a few not-so-nice people over the years. So what?
Reminds me of Obama "palling around with terrorists".
I think that you will find that Obama has done more damage to the US of A than presently apparent.
It's fine to dislike Obama or Corbyn, it's just wrong-headed to dislike them because they've previously had the vaguest of associations with terrorists or anti-semites or whatever.
I think the smears against JC seem too much like smears to gain much traction. Yeah, he's talked to a few not-so-nice people over the years. So what?
Reminds me of Obama "palling around with terrorists".
I think that you will find that Obama has done more damage to the US of A than presently apparent.
It's fine to dislike Obama or Corbyn, it's just wrong-headed to dislike them because they've previously had the vaguest of associations with terrorists or anti-semites or whatever.
JC is chair of an organisation that arguably is built on anti-semitism. It's a dilemma...
Call me chicken.. But I've traded my book to an all-green position now with Corbyn netting me £185, Kendall £200, and Burnham/Cooper a tenner each. I'm -640 on the rest of the field but view that as very low risk.
I was at +£500 on Corbyn at one point but got cold feet and couldn't afford to drop a grand if he just fell short.
Call me chicken.. But I've traded my book to an all-green position now with Corbyn netting me £185, Kendall £200, and Burnham/Cooper a tenner each. I'm -640 on the rest of the field but view that as very low risk.
.
They are hardly 'stories that are now surfacing'. Corbyn is well known as a long time activist on behalf of Palestinian rights, a very worthy cause given the hideous oppression of the people there. Just because some of his fellow travellers in this broad church hold some unpleasant views has no bearing on Corbyn, and anyone sane can see that. Not everyone is as thick as PB Tories, you do have to remember.
But what Corbyn has said and done and not said and done does have bearing on him. He himself realises it - even if you do not - and that is why his responses have been such a mess, when challenged.
And now - forgetting the Palestine/Israel issues - we discover that he is Chair of the Stop the War movement which last year - August 2014 - opposed Western intervention to save Yazidis from their gruesome fate under IS. To be precise, that fate for Yazidi girls involves mass rape, enslavement as sex slaves, being bought and sold, and murder. He is the chair of the organisation which has decided that it would be better for such girls to be left to their fate than for the West to do anything to help them because to do so would be to be on the side of the US.
This is not someone he met or may have shaken hands with. This is the organisation he chairs. So presumably this is his view.
And it is legitimate for others to comment on the view that he takes. After all, presumably his chairmanship of Stop the War is a key part of the new politics which he has been proclaiming.
Okay, so in 48 hours all the sentiment is now moving against Corbyn, but the Betfair price has barely moved. 1.38 the mid point right about now.
I usually bet only Arytons on politics bets, just for fun rather than to pay the mortgage. But I'm on at 100/1 here so Jeremy had better bloody win me the grand now!
Why would the Betfair price move?
Next big event will the YouGov poll I guess. But I assume the candidates internal numbers haven't shifted at all (or we'd have heard about it), which is good for Corbyn.
The turn-around time for the email ballot for £3ers will be very fast. I'd imagine a huge % will be completed within 24hrs of receipt.
And a large % of these will be Corbynites. Unless something drastic happens to either YC or AB this week - I can't see it being anything other than very very close or a Jezza win on 1st prefs.
A brief perusal of the comments on various articles on Labour Uncut, a blog clearly vehemently opposed to Jeremy Corbyn, tends to suggest that those inclined to support him are impervious to any suggestions that his character is questionable, despite mounting evidence of less than savoury associations with numerous undesirables. They simply aren't interested.
The majority are attracted by his plain speaking, his vision, his clarity of purpose and care not a jot about who he may have stood beside or what they may have said about British soldiers, homosexuals, Jews or the British state. He could have signed a Standing Order paying a tenner a month to Hezbollah and they wouldn't bat an eyelid.
And these are the people who will be sending off their ballots with a first preference for JC and have no interest in an AV for any of the others. And they seem to outnumber everyone else.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the next Leader of the Opposition will be the Rt Hon Member for Islington North. God help the Labour Party.
I listened to Jezza's interview on R4 today. He didn't really answer any of the questions and was irritated to be reminded of the question. A mind that runs on railway lines and won't be deflected. The mental flexibility of a plankton.
But I dislike him, as much for what he says as for what he reminds me of. I still think the lemmings will come to a screeching halt just before the cliff edge.
Bonar Law had been leader since 1910 when he almost won, a totally different story. Macmillan won one of the largest Tory victories in history, again, a totally different story from Watson. Watson has next to zero chance of leading Labour in 2020, he is too divisive for starters as he consistently undermined Blair. No, Beckett or Johnson it will have to be, the only candidates experienced enough and acceptable enough to Blairities, Brownites and the Left to fit the bill
Yes - but I'm not talking about what they did. I'm talking about how they were perceived. Bonar Law was from 1911 (not 1910) the leader of the largest party in a hung parliament, at a time when the Liberals were imploding over Ireland. He had in theory a terrific hand to play, and there are not a few historians, including Conservative ones, who think that because of the factional fighting in his party he misplayed it badly. Macmillan said, when kissing hands, that he might not last six weeks. But he did. Because he was the right man in the right place.
I really don't think you are grasping the key point. Beckett and Johnson are too old, too controversial, too tainted by the remarks they have made and will doubtless continue to make, and they are STILL hated by large sections of the party (you think Blairites hate Watson? Ask the left how they feel about Johnson - the word 'traitor' comes up a lot. There are far more on the left than there are Blairites, even allowing for some chaos in the ranks).
So again, the deputy leader or senior shadow cabinet figure, however rude, however arrogant, however bad his campaigning skills, is a likelier candidate to replace Corbyn than those two.
If I am wrong, I will happily admit it three years from now. But the happiest person of all would be Cameron's successor.
No, wrong. The only acceptable alternative leader pre-election would have to be experienced, a former Cabinet Minister and respected across the party, not the noncefinder general who spent his early years undermining Blair. Beckett and Johnson have been loyal to every Labour leader and would likely even be loyal to Corbyn AFTER the leadership election. I have also never heard anyone call Alan Johnson a traitor.
I listened to Jezza's interview on R4 today. He didn't really answer any of the questions and was irritated to be reminded of the question. A
Well that's pretty standard behaviour in fairness. Was it any worse than Lucy Powell and Chuka Umunna types, who act that way all the time in inteviews? I presume it's a reaction against the trend of overly aggressive interviewers, but the newer breed seem to overcompensate.
I noticed he has a pronounced habit of talking and talking - and has no idea that he isn't there just to spout. Martha had to tell him to stop multiple times. And that he needed to answer the caller's question. He got a bit testy, but not half as bad as C4 News
I think playing in the Big Boys League is proving a bit harder than he thought.
I listened to Jezza's interview on R4 today. He didn't really answer any of the questions and was irritated to be reminded of the question. A mind that runs on railway lines and won't be deflected. The mental flexibility of a plankton.
But I dislike him, as much for what he says as for what he reminds me of. I still think the lemmings will come to a screeching halt just before the cliff edge.
Betfair cricket odds - Eng 7/5, Aus 8/5, Draw 4/1. Possibly a spot of rain in the morning, and showers forecast for the weekend. Might wait for the toss, can't see the value there at all.
After Trent Bridge I lamented the good old days of 3, 4, 5 years ago when laying the draw was (subject to raid being forecast) still a rock solid strategy with a decent return...
Welcome! Laying the draw is still statistically the most likely outcome, made me money in the last few Tests. I'll have a good look at several weather forecasts before laying this time.
Could be worse though, we could be trying to predict rain or not for the Belgian GP at Spa - roll of the dice that one!
I think the smears against JC seem too much like smears to gain much traction. Yeah, he's talked to a few not-so-nice people over the years. So what?
Reminds me of Obama "palling around with terrorists".
I think that you will find that Obama has done more damage to the US of A than presently apparent.
It's fine to dislike Obama or Corbyn, it's just wrong-headed to dislike them because they've previously had the vaguest of associations with terrorists or anti-semites or whatever.
Except in Corbyn's case, it's not the vaguest of associations. Raed Salah, of blood libel fame, wasn't someone that happened to be in a room with him. He's a man that Corbyn has met several times, and defended as a leader of his people and an honoured citizen. He even criticized the media for demonising him.
No, wrong. The only acceptable alternative leader pre-election would have to be experienced, a former Cabinet Minister and respected across the party, not the noncefinder general who spent his early years undermining Blair. Beckett and Johnson have been loyal to every Labour leader and would likely even be loyal to Corbyn AFTER the leadership election. I have also never heard anyone call Alan Johnson a traitor.
And before today, I had never heard of anyone accusing Michael Howard of briefing against Iain Duncan Smith. I think that probably reflects the different circles we move in.
To put it at its simplest - do you really think a 72 year old who was promoted to the Foreign Office solely as an emergency stop gap after two other more senior ministers had refused it, whose ministerial career was one of pretty much unmitigated disaster and ended nearly ten years ago, who is not really respected (let's be honest) by the MPs left in Labour and has agreed that she and other nominators of Corbyn are 'morons' is a stronger candidate than the man more than a quarter of the PLP has nominated to be deputy leader and who will be a key figure in the shadow cabinet, win or lose?
Yes, he's loathsome. Yes, he's incompetent. Yes, he's controversial. But he's still the likeliest emergency stop-gap figure. Perhaps Labour would be sensible to find an elder statesman(/woman) to fill in. But there isn't one who could do it. Therefore, Watson is the value bet.
Am I the only PBer who's voted Lab, Con, LD, Green, Independent Mayoral Candidate and UKIP? (though not all at once, obviously!)
Never voted UKIP. Voted for all the rest. Also voted for a Green/Plaid Cymru joint ticket once though - does that count as two in one? If so, I'm up with you.
I listened to Jezza's interview on R4 today. He didn't really answer any of the questions and was irritated to be reminded of the question. A
Well that's pretty standard behaviour in fairness. Was it any worse than Lucy Powell and Chuka Umunna types, who act that way all the time in inteviews? I presume it's a reaction against the trend of overly aggressive interviewers, but the newer breed seem to overcompensate.
He also uses the "innocent by association" defence. So apparently the fact that his mother was against the Mosleyites in the 1930's is his answer to the questions raised about his friendships with Islamist extremists now. It's an evasive and dishonest answer to a legitimate question. If he really believed that he was doing something worthwhile by meeting with and inviting these Islamist extremists to Parliament then he should be willing to say what he was doing, why and why he thought and thinks it a good thing.
But he doesn't: he claims not to know them then when that is untenable comes out with rubbish like " he didn't say anything anti-semitic to me" or plays the "my parents were anti-fascists" card. It's evidence of someone who didn't think through properly what he was doing at the time or didn't care and now realises (or rather his office does) that there is a mismatch between the values he claims to believe in and his actions.
There's no new politics about him. He's just another politician trying to avoid difficult questions. I dare say you could find obscure Tory Monday Club MPs talking equally offensive and evasive rubbish in response to questions about their support for white supremacists in Africa.
"And it is legitimate for others to comment on the view that he takes. After all, presumably his chairmanship of Stop the War is a key part of the new politics which he has been proclaiming."
It is highly legitimate and his inability to answer questions on these matters in interviews with C4 News previously, and on WATO today, raise grave concerns about not only the company he keeps but his suitability for the role he seeks to fill.
Unfortunately, the people who will be voting for him couldn't give a toss.
Comments
Tom Watson for Labour Leader... now there's a thought.
The value bet there looks to me to be Tom Watson. Even if he loses the Deputy Leadership, he's likely to be a big hitter in a Corbyn shadow cabinet (let's face it, he's not going to worry about the leader's principles or policies) and he's also by far the most aggressive parliamentary performer Labour have with the fall of Balls. As deputy leader he would be a shoo-in - as say, Shadow Defence Secretary or Shadow Home Secretary he would be a formidable candidate.
OK, so people may not like him, and he's controversial. But for a party in the mess Labour will be after 18-24 months of Corbyn, I think they would go for clarity, youth and aggression over age and muddle.
He wouldn't be Howard to Corbyn's IDS, but he could be Macmillan to Corbyn's Eden, or Bonar Law to Corbyn's Balfour.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150813220116/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33905334
This gives me a tough decision: I had him down as my 4th preference before I read the manifestos as I thought the last thing the country needed was a five-year re-run of the last five years, with AB's policies being barely distinguishable from EdM.
But if I were voting on the manifestos alone it would probably be a plump vote for Burnham.
Former TUC President Roger Lyons says Tessa’s One London vision is exactly what working people need http://ow.ly/R6J8X
Beckett called herself a moron under pressure, she has not said anything critical of Corbyn as far as I can see
'IDS ≠ Corbyn. It would be more like Cameron having had Bill Cash in the Shadow Cabinet.'
Bill Cash was IDS' Shadow Attorney General
Go all in, yer wus!
PS someone made a joke on TV the other night on the subject of Dave Banana and Ed Stone which went something on the lines of, he would be more likely to vote for Glenn Millerband than either of them.
To be fair it does look like Ed's boarded a plane and disappeared without trace.
Worse, he was involved in the Falkirk scandal, which heralded Scottish Labour's descent to electoral oblivion.
Electing him deputy might well be a worse move than electing Corbyn as leader. He's a UXB.
Step forward Alan Johnson. Would save Labour and get the party to 2020 without massive splits.
Macmillan was not trusted by the left of the Tory party. He was seen as too Whiggish, too self-serving, too arrogant. But they were willing to work with someone decisive, like Macmillan, ahead of somebody they liked and trusted but could never make up his mind (Butler) because they believed the situation needed clarity of thought and purpose.
So I think the parallel stands. It's not a question of whether there is anybody good out there - because there isn't. It's a question of who would be the best candidate under the circumstances. For all the reasons I have outlined, I do not think either Beckett or Johnson are plausible candidates (the mere fact that a septuagenarian failure like Beckett is being mentioned is a fair indication of the weakness of the field). So I think Watson would be plausible as Labour leader in 2020, and that therefore looks the value bet.
A slug in a suit. Hahaha. Blairites would have a fit.
This time round I see YC as the best alternative PM (just, and more as a least-worst option - so sad that the TB-GB wars killed of a generation of Labour's best talent) and I guess JC as the best LOTO (on the grounds that the Tories have never faced anyone anything like him so might not know how to deal with him).
Nevertheless, welcome @ThreeQuidder, to the PB fray and long may you stay.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142553/anti-israel-activists-attack-jc-challenging-jeremy-corbyn
"We do not accept that you speak on behalf of progressive Jews in this country. You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong.
"There is something deeply unpleasant and dishonest about your McCarthyite guilt by association technique..."
http://order-order.com/2015/08/03/tom-watsons-campaign-cock-up-amnesia/#:HHYItmsbgoRzlA
I'm not saying he'd be a good leader - he wouldn't. But he might just be the right man in the right place at the right time.
(Alan Johnson will be 70 in 2020. The last 70 year old leader to contest an election was Foot in 1983 - and before that, Attlee and Davies in 1955. Indeed, Jo Grimond was only 63 when he had his second spell as Liberal leader. While Johnson is definitely a better candidate than any on offer, I think his time has now passed.)
http://www.andy4labour.co.uk/meet_andy_in_central_london?utm_campaign=stpancrasinvite&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ab
No, I don't take manifestos at face value. But each of JC, YC and LK said something at variance with the reality of today or the history of the past that makes me think that *if they really believe that* it would mean I couldn't in good conscience vote for them. AB didn't.
LK, JC, YC, AB - or LK, YC, AB, JC - depending on how much JC is determined to lead Britain out of the civilised world and towards Putin et al. I see LK as inexperienced (not her faut of course) but actually living in the real world and taking Labour in the right direction; AB as a repeat of EdM; and YC as a slight variant on GB - though hopefully in better circumstances.
There are many more male MPs, and even more so until recent times, and there has only been two competitive Labour leadership elections since the mid-90s.
The quality of female leadership candidates hasn't been high. The best of the bunch has been Yvette Cooper this election and Maragret Beckett in 1994, and it's tough to argue either really deserved to win over their male counterparts.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there's an "old boys club" issue involved as well.
And, probably controversially, I've long wondered whether if there might be an underlying systemic problem with selection - maybe the qualities and characteristics required to become a female MPs and reach the front-bench equally make it hard for them to become party leader.
In all seriousness, I haven't always voted Labour. I didn't in May - didn't think I could support the local candidate who had been more than a bit of a prat when leader/deputy (can't remember or be bothered to check now!) of the local council - but I did in a parliamentary by election in the last parliament.
TBH, I stuck her first because she's got no charisma or looks to play on - I felt she must be sensible or geniune. Watson second as he's revolting, Flint as half useful in 3rd, Bradshaw for being the opposite of Angela and Creasy last as she was once rude to me on Twitter.
Very scientific!
I usually bet only Arytons on politics bets, just for fun rather than to pay the mortgage. But I'm on at 100/1 here so Jeremy had better bloody win me the grand now!
Me and @Rottenborough are already in that market with a private bet
https://twitter.com/Nero/status/633981278036082688
They may wish they hadn't given the stories now emerging, although as we can see they don't seem to be affecting the his admirers much, but their votes will still count.
Possibly a spot of rain in the morning, and showers forecast for the weekend.
Might wait for the toss, can't see the value there at all.
Reminds me of Obama "palling around with terrorists".
The majority are attracted by his plain speaking, his vision, his clarity of purpose and care not a jot about who he may have stood beside or what they may have said about British soldiers, homosexuals, Jews or the British state. He could have signed a Standing Order paying a tenner a month to Hezbollah and they wouldn't bat an eyelid.
And these are the people who will be sending off their ballots with a first preference for JC and have no interest in an AV for any of the others. And they seem to outnumber everyone else.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the next Leader of the Opposition will be the Rt Hon Member for Islington North. God help the Labour Party.
Yawnarama
I really don't think you are grasping the key point. Beckett and Johnson are too old, too controversial, too tainted by the remarks they have made and will doubtless continue to make, and they are STILL hated by large sections of the party (you think Blairites hate Watson? Ask the left how they feel about Johnson - the word 'traitor' comes up a lot. There are far more on the left than there are Blairites, even allowing for some chaos in the ranks).
So again, the deputy leader or senior shadow cabinet figure, however rude, however arrogant, however bad his campaigning skills, is a likelier candidate to replace Corbyn than those two.
If I am wrong, I will happily admit it three years from now. But the happiest person of all would be Cameron's successor.
And now - forgetting the Palestine/Israel issues - we discover that he is Chair of the Stop the War movement which last year - August 2014 - opposed Western intervention to save Yazidis from their gruesome fate under IS. To be precise, that fate for Yazidi girls involves mass rape, enslavement as sex slaves, being bought and sold, and murder. He is the chair of the organisation which has decided that it would be better for such girls to be left to their fate than for the West to do anything to help them because to do so would be to be on the side of the US.
This is not someone he met or may have shaken hands with. This is the organisation he chairs. So presumably this is his view.
And it is legitimate for others to comment on the view that he takes. After all, presumably his chairmanship of Stop the War is a key part of the new politics which he has been proclaiming.
Next big event will the YouGov poll I guess. But I assume the candidates internal numbers haven't shifted at all (or we'd have heard about it), which is good for Corbyn.
And a large % of these will be Corbynites. Unless something drastic happens to either YC or AB this week - I can't see it being anything other than very very close or a Jezza win on 1st prefs.
I listened to Jezza's interview on R4 today. He didn't really answer any of the questions and was irritated to be reminded of the question. A mind that runs on railway lines and won't be deflected. The mental flexibility of a plankton.
But I dislike him, as much for what he says as for what he reminds me of. I still think the lemmings will come to a screeching halt just before the cliff edge.
I think playing in the Big Boys League is proving a bit harder than he thought.
Could be worse though, we could be trying to predict rain or not for the Belgian GP at Spa - roll of the dice that one!
To put it at its simplest - do you really think a 72 year old who was promoted to the Foreign Office solely as an emergency stop gap after two other more senior ministers had refused it, whose ministerial career was one of pretty much unmitigated disaster and ended nearly ten years ago, who is not really respected (let's be honest) by the MPs left in Labour and has agreed that she and other nominators of Corbyn are 'morons' is a stronger candidate than the man more than a quarter of the PLP has nominated to be deputy leader and who will be a key figure in the shadow cabinet, win or lose?
Yes, he's loathsome. Yes, he's incompetent. Yes, he's controversial. But he's still the likeliest emergency stop-gap figure. Perhaps Labour would be sensible to find an elder statesman(/woman) to fill in. But there isn't one who could do it. Therefore, Watson is the value bet.
No, I have never and will never vote Labour. UKIP, Christian Alliance, Green but Tory, Tory, Tory.
But he doesn't: he claims not to know them then when that is untenable comes out with rubbish like " he didn't say anything anti-semitic to me" or plays the "my parents were anti-fascists" card. It's evidence of someone who didn't think through properly what he was doing at the time or didn't care and now realises (or rather his office does) that there is a mismatch between the values he claims to believe in and his actions.
There's no new politics about him. He's just another politician trying to avoid difficult questions. I dare say you could find obscure Tory Monday Club MPs talking equally offensive and evasive rubbish in response to questions about their support for white supremacists in Africa.
"And it is legitimate for others to comment on the view that he takes. After all, presumably his chairmanship of Stop the War is a key part of the new politics which he has been proclaiming."
It is highly legitimate and his inability to answer questions on these matters in interviews with C4 News previously, and on WATO today, raise grave concerns about not only the company he keeps but his suitability for the role he seeks to fill.
Unfortunately, the people who will be voting for him couldn't give a toss.
He has a vision you see.