It is late in the day to muse on this perhaps, but given that you are asked to declare both that you support the aims and values of the Labour party and that you are not a member of any organisation opposed to its aims and values, does this leadership election have any more legal protection over and above what the efforts of the membership office provides and is there any possible consequence of false declaration upon the individual.
From everything discussed thus far, I figure as a simple membership organisation the Labour party ballot has much lesser legal status than either an official election itself or even a union strike ballot, unless the official status of the Labour party as HM Opposition and the winner as HM LOTO means it is afforded some official protection, be it through some wierd corner of treason law or something more mundane!! Certainly, the attempts at gerrymander of the constituency here could be seen as at least as serious for the country as a whole, in that they could deny proper opposition, as any one day strike vote.
Finally given that the Tory constitution states that 'Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with Membership of or association with any other registered political party', perhaps a few Labour backbenchers could make some running for the Conservatives to expel thousands of their own members for breach of Tory party rules. (wouldn't it be fun if Grant Shapps were registered under some pseudonym ).
Isn't it a bit unfair that England get Jerusalem sung for them while the other team don't have their national anthem played? The Aussie batsman just had to walk out to the rousing sound of the opposition's anthem.
Isn't it a bit unfair that England get Jerusalem sung for them while the other team don't have their national anthem played? The Aussie batsman just had to walk out to the rousing sound of the opposition's anthem.
No.
If you can't deal with the opposition's anthem you shouldn't be playing test cricket
Isn't it a bit unfair that England get Jerusalem sung for them while the other team don't have their national anthem played? The Aussie batsman just had to walk out to the rousing sound of the opposition's anthem.
No.
If you can't deal with the opposition's anthem you shouldn't be playing test cricket
There are better reasons why some of these Aussie batsmen should not be playing Test Cricket though
Does anyone have data ready to hand for the number of male / female candidates by party for every GE since 1997? My Google-fu has not been good enough to find such a thing, if it exists.
If not, where can I find details of candidates for all parties at the GE's? There was an excellent spreadsheet of such data before this last GE, but is there similar for past GE's?
The Nuffield election study might give the information.
This document gives some information on female candidates in 2010:
Does anyone have data ready to hand for the number of male / female candidates by party for every GE since 1997? My Google-fu has not been good enough to find such a thing, if it exists.
If not, where can I find details of candidates for all parties at the GE's? There was an excellent spreadsheet of such data before this last GE, but is there similar for past GE's?
The Nuffield election study might give the information.
This document gives some information on female candidates in 2010:
Does anyone have data ready to hand for the number of male / female candidates by party for every GE since 1997? My Google-fu has not been good enough to find such a thing, if it exists.
If not, where can I find details of candidates for all parties at the GE's? There was an excellent spreadsheet of such data before this last GE, but is there similar for past GE's?
The Nuffield election study might give the information.
This document gives some information on female candidates in 2010:
I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.
I have voted as a £3 supporter despite being a LD member, but I was a Labour member for 10 years, and could be tempted back under the right leader (such as Kendall). I have a clear conscience about it.
@DeaPB Ask yourself how you would feel if a Labour supporter managed to cheat their way to voting in a Conservative leadership contest. Little as I love the Tories, I would have hoped a former Tory council leader had higher moral standards than this.
I'm assuming the "higher moral standards" thing is ironic?
Actually I wouldn't care a jot if a Labour supporter voted in a Tory Leadership election. Because we have a system that stops unreconstructed extremists from getting out to the membership. In the open elections we've had, Labour supporters could have voted for:
- IDS or Clarke; so either it would have made no difference or they'd have saved us from ourselves - Then the MPs had the sense not to let us get it wrong twice on the trot and installed Howard - Davis or Cameron; Davis may have proven himself to be a little bit bonkers but at least he's sound on civil liberties.
Ken Clarke would have destroyed the Tory party. Not only was he out of tune with most of the membership, he is obnoxious in his disagreement and openly contemptuous of those with different philosophies. Blair would have probably used the opportunity to overrule Brown and take us into the Eurozone without a referendum.
Which leaves a question: who in Labour is respected enough within the party: by the hard left, the Blairites, the centrists, the rank-and-file and the CIF'ers, to be able to pull them all together to form a concerted and necessary opposition to the government?
It doesn't look to me as though anyone is. In any case the current civil war will have to exhaust itself before there is even a possibility of reconciliation. That could take a long time; Labour, in particular, has a long memory when it comes to internal feuds.
For that reason, if JC does become leader, he may well survive as leader until the next election, for want of any agreement as to who could replace him and unite the party. Even if he doesn't survive, replacing him with someone else who also fails to have the support of a large chunk of the party (even if a different chunk) won't help much. There is also the complication, with the Conservatives didn't have when IDS was defenestrated, of the icy grip of Unite on the party.
It follows IMO that those Labour supporters who are consoling themselves with the thought that electing JC would be only a temporary disaster (or who are actively supporting him in order to 'shake things up') are kidding themselves: this is a civil war which will engulf the party almost irrespective of what happens in this contest and over the next couple of years. When you add in the disaster of Scotland, the prognosis for the party cannot be anything other than dire.
It is late in the day to muse on this perhaps, but given that you are asked to declare both that you support the aims and values of the Labour party and that you are not a member of any organisation opposed to its aims and values, does this leadership election have any more legal protection over and above what the efforts of the membership office provides and is there any possible consequence of false declaration upon the individual.
From everything discussed thus far, I figure as a simple membership organisation the Labour party ballot has much lesser legal status than either an official election itself or even a union strike ballot, unless the official status of the Labour party as HM Opposition and the winner as HM LOTO means it is afforded some official protection, be it through some wierd corner of treason law or something more mundane!! Certainly, the attempts at gerrymander of the constituency here could be seen as at least as serious for the country as a whole, in that they could deny proper opposition, as any one day strike vote.
Finally given that the Tory constitution states that 'Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with Membership of or association with any other registered political party', perhaps a few Labour backbenchers could make some running for the Conservatives to expel thousands of their own members for breach of Tory party rules. (wouldn't it be fun if Grant Shapps were registered under some pseudonym ).
I think the Tories let you join another party as long as you have your fingers crossed behind your back whilst doing so....
I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.
And how, precisely, are you going to establish this legitimacy?
Are people going to be paraded in front of a panel chaired by Tom Watson to be asked 'Are you or have you ever been a Corbynist?'
Labour set up the system. They have to live with the consequences.
One or two ominous signs on the economic horizon - IF China's growth is more like the UK's than the official numbers (7-8%), that will have a global impact not least on demand for oil and other raw materials - how will it affect Australia, Canada and similar places ?
What it may do is further postpone interest rate rises if the global economy appears to be weakening.
On the Labour leadership election, the risk of an open process is you don't know who will get involved. Had Corbyn not been standing, I wonder how many of the "£3 Socialists" on here would have bothered. The tactic of using the electoral process to produce the winner most likely to damage that Party's prospects is nothing new - it's called politics.
But that's the problem - even getting the franchise to the paid-up membership and Party officers was a struggle for both Labour and the Conservatives for decades.
So, whether it's via an open primary or by registration, if you extend the franchise to include those who may not potentially be your supporters, then you run the risk that sufficently-organised groups could disrupt the process. That in itself only happens if a) you have such a drawn-out process people have time to organise and b) there is a candidate whose perceived ability to damage the Party, if elected, is such that it encourages those ill-disposed toward the Party to join the process to ensure that happens.
The whole point of the £3 fee was to allow anyone to vote for the next Labour leader, especially those who were not traditional Labour supporters. Seems perfectly sensible for Tories to vote for Liz as their first choice.
"Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has announced that any registered voter will be able to help choose the party’s next leader for a £3 fee....
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
I try and imagine what would have happened if a group of misguided Tory MPs had somehow put Nigel Farage on the ballot for party leader. And then let anyone vote if they had bought the Daily Mail for a week... Which chaotic, utterly bonkers scenario seems to be where Labour has got to under Hapless Harriet.
One or two ominous signs on the economic horizon - IF China's growth is more like the UK's than the official numbers (7-8%), that will have a global impact not least on demand for oil and other raw materials - how will it affect Australia, Canada and similar places ?
What it may do is further postpone interest rate rises if the global economy appears to be weakening.
On the Labour leadership election, the risk of an open process is you don't know who will get involved. Had Corbyn not been standing, I wonder how many of the "£3 Socialists" on here would have bothered. The tactic of using the electoral process to produce the winner most likely to damage that Party's prospects is nothing new - it's called politics.
But that's the problem - even getting the franchise to the paid-up membership and Party officers was a struggle for both Labour and the Conservatives for decades.
So, whether it's via an open primary or by registration, if you extend the franchise to include those who may not potentially be your supporters, then you run the risk that sufficently-organised groups could disrupt the process. That in itself only happens if a) you have such a drawn-out process people have time to organise and b) there is a candidate whose perceived ability to damage the Party, if elected, is such that it encourages those ill-disposed toward the Party to join the process to ensure that happens.
From what I have seen and heard, it is not the 'entryists' who are driving the Corbyn success, it is younger people who identify as being 'of the left' who are the most enthusiastic for him. Seeing him as some sort of exemplar of Pure Socialist Thought. Add to them the old lefties who are returning to being active in the party because they feel they have someone in tune with their beliefs from 40 years ago - and you have the start of a momentum that is generating large audiences at Corbyn rallies and the sense that his victory is now almost inevitable.
PS: Look at the housebuilders' financial results and projections. They ain't slowing down, that's for sure, although supply and labour constraints are beginning to bite.
I try and imagine what would have happened if a group of misguided Tory MPs had somehow put Nigel Farage on the ballot for party leader. And then let anyone vote if they had bought the Daily Mail for a week... Which chaotic, utterly bonkers scenario seems to be where Labour has got to under Hapless Harriet.
EdM was certainly right about the result of his reforms
"Mr Miliband said his plan – to be voted on at a conference on March 1 – went further than when Mr Blair axed Clause IV of Labour’s constitution, which had committed the party to nationalisation.
‘This is bigger than Clause IV in its impact on the way it will change politics,’ he said."
The whole point of the £3 fee was to allow anyone to vote for the next Labour leader, especially those who were not traditional Labour supporters. Seems perfectly sensible for Tories to vote for Liz as their first choice.
"Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has announced that any registered voter will be able to help choose the party’s next leader for a £3 fee....
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
I try and imagine what would have happened if a group of misguided Tory MPs had somehow put Nigel Farage on the ballot for party leader. And then let anyone vote if they had bought the Daily Mail for a week... Which chaotic, utterly bonkers scenario seems to be where Labour has got to under Hapless Harriet.
I actually think the electoral system is being used as a scapegoat here. It's not Tory voters putting in Corbyn, nor is it Communists Party or Green members. The vast majority of voters in this contest are long standing members and supporters of the Labour Party. If they put a hard leftist like Jezbollah in power, it's their own damn fault. If the Conservatives had an Open Primary, it would be the same situation: Conservative voters are a sensible enough lot, and enough of them would vote for a reasonable choice that would prevent someone on the extreme right getting in, even if there was an influx from other parties.
I try and imagine what would have happened if a group of misguided Tory MPs had somehow put Nigel Farage on the ballot for party leader. And then let anyone vote if they had bought the Daily Mail for a week... Which chaotic, utterly bonkers scenario seems to be where Labour has got to under Hapless Harriet.
EdM was certainly right about the result of his reforms
"Mr Miliband said his plan – to be voted on at a conference on March 1 – went further than when Mr Blair axed Clause IV of Labour’s constitution, which had committed the party to nationalisation.
‘This is bigger than Clause IV in its impact on the way it will change politics,’ he said."
"In what the Labour leader called a ‘seismic change’, he plans to devolve power to registered supporters who can ‘be part of our party without having to go so far as joining it’."
There's actually a moral duty for sensible Tories to vote in the Labour leadership campaign. The whole thing is such a shambles they are putting effective opposition at risk. It's in the public interest to try and avoid that - Labour is not just some rinky-dink private club.
@DearPB Kendall is the first choice: she has serious weaknesses as a candidate and I don't think she would beat generic Tory in 2020. But she will start the process of recovery.
Corbyn is the #2 option because it will be a traumatic intervention. The next 3 years will be a disaster, but hopefully it will force Labour to re-evaluate how they are relevant to modern Britain. Hopefully before 2020 but maybe not until afterwards.
The problem with Cooper/Burnham is they won't win in 2020, but they won't progress the renewal either. So in 2020 we end up where we are today with no progress made.
I'm very keen for Labour to be a credible *opposition*
These are the only aims and values listed officially by the Labour Party that I can find:
• social justice • strong community and strong values • reward for hard work • decency • rights matched by responsibilities
I don't see why any Conservative signing up couldn't honestly say he supports those, and that his membership of the Conservative Party isn't opposed to them.
“The party’s processes were never set up to cope with this situation and nor was it foreseen that you would have a potential infiltration issue of this scale,” a shadow cabinet minister told me. “We don’t have copies of the TUSC [Trade Union and Socialist Coalition] membership list, or the Green Party list, or the Left Unity list, or the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty list. You can’t know how in-depth this has become.”
Yet Corbyn’s success owes less to entryism than thought. There are Labour voters who departed under Blair and now feel liberated to return; left-wing members who joined under Ed Miliband (and regard Corbyn as his successor); and young voters who are losing their political virginity. On the party’s right, there is self-reproach at their failure to sign up moderate supporters to counter the radicals. “We were hideously complacent,” one MP said.
Others attribute Corbyn’s rise to the unattractiveness of his opponents. “Andy, Yvette and Liz have a lot to answer for,” a senior MP told me. “If you can’t beat Jeremy Corbyn, how you can beat George Osborne, Boris Johnson or Theresa May?” Some of the other three’s own backers are stunned by how few new ideas they have offered. The decision of all three to position themselves to the right of Miliband following Labour’s defeat is regarded by Corbyn’s supporters as central to his success.
I try and imagine what would have happened if a group of misguided Tory MPs had somehow put Nigel Farage on the ballot for party leader. And then let anyone vote if they had bought the Daily Mail for a week... Which chaotic, utterly bonkers scenario seems to be where Labour has got to under Hapless Harriet.
I actually think the electoral system is being used as a scapegoat here. It's not Tory voters putting in Corbyn, nor is it Communists Party or Green members. The vast majority of voters in this contest are long standing members and supporters of the Labour Party. If they put a hard leftist like Jezbollah in power, it's their own damn fault. If the Conservatives had an Open Primary, it would be the same situation: Conservative voters are a sensible enough lot, and enough of them would vote for a reasonable choice that would prevent someone on the extreme right getting in, even if there was an influx from other parties.
That just goes to show how Norway, unlike the other nations on that list, owes its success not to oil, but to other aspects: hard work, rule of law, intolerance of corruption, learning, integration of migrants, and sound finances. A beacon for the rest of us.
The whole point of the £3 fee was to allow anyone to vote for the next Labour leader, especially those who were not traditional Labour supporters. Seems perfectly sensible for Tories to vote for Liz as their first choice.
"Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has announced that any registered voter will be able to help choose the party’s next leader for a £3 fee....
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
I try and imagine what would have happened if a group of misguided Tory MPs had somehow put Nigel Farage on the ballot for party leader. And then let anyone vote if they had bought the Daily Mail for a week... Which chaotic, utterly bonkers scenario seems to be where Labour has got to under Hapless Harriet.
I actually think the electoral system is being used as a scapegoat here. It's not Tory voters putting in Corbyn, nor is it Communists Party or Green members. The vast majority of voters in this contest are long standing members and supporters of the Labour Party. If they put a hard leftist like Jezbollah in power, it's their own damn fault. If the Conservatives had an Open Primary, it would be the same situation: Conservative voters are a sensible enough lot, and enough of them would vote for a reasonable choice that would prevent someone on the extreme right getting in, even if there was an influx from other parties.
Not to mention that the MPs were supposed to filter out lunatic choices.
Of course, if Corbyn and friends can get their hands on the levers of candidate approval and re/selection for long enough, they can slip enough left-wing MPs into parliament to clear the hurdle without the need for 'leant nominations'.
One or two ominous signs on the economic horizon - IF China's growth is more like the UK's than the official numbers (7-8%), that will have a global impact not least on demand for oil and other raw materials - how will it affect Australia, Canada and similar places ?
What it may do is further postpone interest rate rises if the global economy appears to be weakening.
As PB's resident markets person, a China slowdown is negative for (a) resource exporters, and (b) capital goods makers. Category (a) is Australia, Canada, Russia, the Middle East, and Latin America. Category (b) is Sweden, Germany and (to a lesser extent) Japan.
But a fall in the price of raw materials (whether oil, gas, coal, copper, etc.) is a direct boost for countries that are importers of these products. To use an analogy from history, the 1970s were a period when resource exporters were on top, and the 1980s were a period when resource importers were. (Interestingly, we tend to think of the US as resource rich, but it burns 16m barrels of oil per day, while producing only 9 or 10m).
High resource prices act as a tax on developed economy consumers: from an economic perspective, they are equivalent to a VAT increase, where the take is siphoned off and sent direct to Riyahd, Moscow and the like.
It is no coincidence that the 1970s were a period of weak growth in the West, and the 1980s were a period of high growth. While it is decidedly counter-consensus, the magnitude of the falls in resource prices (and the likelihood they will stay low for a considerable period of time) is an enormous kicker to the economies of the UK, Japan, South Korea, China, the US, and the Eurozone. Don't forget that a country like Spain or Japan spends 5% of GDP - give or take - on direct imports of commodities (plus, probably, another 3-4% in indirect): if the price of commodities is 50% lower in the next five years than it was in the last, then that adds 1% a year onto GDP growth.
On the flip side of the coin, it is going to be pretty miserable for the economies of oil exporting countries. People forget that one of the major reasons the Soviet Union fell apart was because the price it was getting for its major export collapsed during the 80s and early 90s.
These are the only aims and values listed officially by the Labour Party that I can find:
• social justice • strong community and strong values • reward for hard work • decency • rights matched by responsibilities
I don't see why any Conservative signing up couldn't honestly say he supports those, and that his membership of the Conservative Party isn't opposed to them.
That was exactly the thought process I went through in deciding whether I supported Labour's aims & values
Mr. Herdson, the stupidity of MPs who really don't want Corbyn backing him was something to behold. It was more stupid than when Antiochus III deployed elephants in between contingents of heavy infantry at the Battle of Magnesia.
I thought this was interesting. I assume the 15 MPs who nominated him will get jobs - and now the likes of Trickett, Meacher and Abbott will be the New Establishment!
In addition, Clive Lewis told me: “A number of MPs I’ve spoken to who supported both Yvette and Andy are quietly very excited at this turn of events.” He also predicted that “many others, sensing an opportunity to move from virtual political obscurity to front-line politics, an option that wasn’t there three months ago, will do so with guarded enthusiasm”.
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
I try and imagine what would have happened if a group of misguided Tory MPs had somehow put Nigel Farage on the ballot for party leader. And then let anyone vote if they had bought the Daily Mail for a week... Which chaotic, utterly bonkers scenario seems to be where Labour has got to under Hapless Harriet.
I actually think the electoral system is being used as a scapegoat here. It's not Tory voters putting in Corbyn, nor is it Communists Party or Green members. The vast majority of voters in this contest are long standing members and supporters of the Labour Party. If they put a hard leftist like Jezbollah in power, it's their own damn fault. If the Conservatives had an Open Primary, it would be the same situation: Conservative voters are a sensible enough lot, and enough of them would vote for a reasonable choice that would prevent someone on the extreme right getting in, even if there was an influx from other parties.
Not to mention that the MPs were supposed to filter out lunatic choices.
Of course, if Corbyn and friends can get their hands on the levers of candidate approval and re/selection for long enough, they can slip enough left-wing MPs into parliament to clear the hurdle without the need for 'leant nominations'.
These are the only aims and values listed officially by the Labour Party that I can find: • social justice • strong community and strong values • reward for hard work • decency • rights matched by responsibilities
Disappointed that they dropped Motherhood and Apple Pie
And they always have the option of drawing more from the oil fund, as I understand they have a hard cap of 4% draw down but are currently only at 2.6% so that's an extra $8-12 billion they can call on a year.
"In what the Labour leader called a ‘seismic change’, he plans to devolve power to registered supporters who can ‘be part of our party without having to go so far as joining it’."
Certainly has had a seismic effect.
Michael Deacon: "This watertight new voting system for Labour leadership elections was put through by Ed Miliband. Pity he didn't get to run the country."
@JamieAli_: Jeremy Corbyn has voted with the Tories 263 times. Why doesn't he just get it over with and join the Tory Party? Whose side is he really on?
@JamieAli_: Jeremy Corbyn has voted with the Tories 263 times. Why doesn't he just get it over with and join the Tory Party? Whose side is he really on?
And they always have the option of drawing more from the oil fund, as I understand they have a hard cap of 4% draw down but are currently only at 2.6% so that's an extra $8-12 billion they can call on a year.
As an aside, the Norway number in the chart includes "fund drawdown" and the Abu Dhabi and Kuwait numbers do not. (ADIA and KIA are two of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.)
Norway is probably around $50-$55 breakeven excluding fund drawdown.
(That said: Norway has fewer barrels of oil per person than Abu Dhabi or Kuwait, and its oil is more expensive, so you need to include that when thinking about their relative performance too.)
"Thirty victims of female genital mutilation were identified by Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust in just seven months.
Latest figures, released by the NHS data service, showed that 30 patients were treated by the trust, which includes Dewsbury, Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals."
Which leaves a question: who in Labour is respected enough within the party: by the hard left, the Blairites, the centrists, the rank-and-file and the CIF'ers, to be able to pull them all together to form a concerted and necessary opposition to the government?
It doesn't look to me as though anyone is. In any case the current civil war will have to exhaust itself before there is even a possibility of reconciliation. That could take a long time; Labour, in particular, has a long memory when it comes to internal feuds.
For that reason, if JC does become leader, he may well survive as leader until the next election, for want of any agreement as to who could replace him and unite the party. Even if he doesn't survive, replacing him with someone else who also fails to have the support of a large chunk of the party (even if a different chunk) won't help much. There is also the complication, with the Conservatives didn't have when IDS was defenestrated, of the icy grip of Unite on the party.
It follows IMO that those Labour supporters who are consoling themselves with the thought that electing JC would be only a temporary disaster (or who are actively supporting him in order to 'shake things up') are kidding themselves: this is a civil war which will engulf the party almost irrespective of what happens in this contest and over the next couple of years. When you add in the disaster of Scotland, the prognosis for the party cannot be anything other than dire.
Indeed. The thinking of some seems akin to that of the Communists who rejoiced in the bringing down of the Weimar Republic even though they missed getting their hands on the levers of power, on the grounds that once the Nazis failed it would be their turn. (Though technically they were right in the east).
Mr. Herdson, the stupidity of MPs who really don't want Corbyn backing him was something to behold. It was more stupid than when Antiochus III deployed elephants in between contingents of heavy infantry at the Battle of Magnesia.
Ah, Mr Dancer! - The good old days when elephants were deployed in battle!
Nowadays, of course, we deploy them to rooms so that people can ignore them.
These are the only aims and values listed officially by the Labour Party that I can find: • social justice • strong community and strong values • reward for hard work • decency • rights matched by responsibilities
Disappointed that they dropped Motherhood and Apple Pie
Anyone working for a living must wonder how 'reward for hard work' & 'rights matched by responsibilities' fits in with the unwritten 'continue rewarding the feckless and workshy for sitting on their backsides, whilst whining about the withdrawal of the spare room subsidy'?
"The #oilprices countries need to balance budgets..."
Scotland $?
No need... magic money tree. The great Salmondo will whisk out all they need from his top hat. I presume you are referring to the oil price falling again and the massive glut in the USA, not to mention China slowing down.
Mr. Herdson, the stupidity of MPs who really don't want Corbyn backing him was something to behold. It was more stupid than when Antiochus III deployed elephants in between contingents of heavy infantry at the Battle of Magnesia.
Ah the Battle of Magnesia, where Scipio Africanus actually defeated a decent military strategist for the first and only time.
Mr. Herdson, the stupidity of MPs who really don't want Corbyn backing him was something to behold. It was more stupid than when Antiochus III deployed elephants in between contingents of heavy infantry at the Battle of Magnesia.
Or Alexios Angelos inviting the Crusaders to assist him in restoring his father to the Byzantine throne.
"Thirty victims of female genital mutilation were identified by Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust in just seven months.
Latest figures, released by the NHS data service, showed that 30 patients were treated by the trust, which includes Dewsbury, Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals."
OK, looking to see whether any inferences to be made from this:
Mid Yorkshire NHS covers a population of around 500,000, the collated national report is for the whole of NHS England and so covers a little over 50 million.
The trust reports 30 new cases out of 3963 reported nationally.
Unpleasant enough stats, but nothing particular in these local figures that indicates an outlier.
Mr. Herdson, the stupidity of MPs who really don't want Corbyn backing him was something to behold. It was more stupid than when Antiochus III deployed elephants in between contingents of heavy infantry at the Battle of Magnesia.
Ah, Mr Dancer! - The good old days when elephants were deployed in battle!
Nowadays, of course, we deploy them to rooms so that people can ignore them.
@RebeccaaDay: Friend drew my attention to this: posted on Oxford Univ. labour club FB page. #LabourPurge #BigBrotherIsWatchingYou http://t.co/WsTmE4hUtC
Ken Clarke would have destroyed the Tory party. Not only was he out of tune with most of the membership, he is obnoxious in his disagreement and openly contemptuous of those with different philosophies. Blair would have probably used the opportunity to overrule Brown and take us into the Eurozone without a referendum.
My experience as a member of the time was that a lot of ordinary members, including Eurospectics, wanted Clarke as leader on the basis that he was a 'big hitter' and 'man of the people' who would likely claw back some popular support and eat into the Labour majority at the next (2001) election, after which we could have another leadership election.
After 1997, nobody seriously thought Clarke (or indeed Hague) would be Prime Minister. It was about making the most pragmatic and effective choice.
Which of course we didn't.
Not only did we miss out on the effectiveness of Clarke as a bruiser getting us back on the road to recovery, but we also saw Hague peak too soon, and missed out on the benefits of having him become leader in, say, 2003.
As I read it Corbyn is saying to MPs, 'if you don't back me the grass roots will rise up'
Now that really is hubris. Downhill now for Corbyn. However this does confirm the point I have been making for some time. The £3entryists are not voting for leader of the Labour Party and Corbyn is not standing for leader of the Labour Party. He is standing for and they are voting for the Corbyn Party. The Labour Party as was does not exist any more.
These are the only aims and values listed officially by the Labour Party that I can find: • social justice • strong community and strong values • reward for hard work • decency • rights matched by responsibilities
Disappointed that they dropped Motherhood and Apple Pie
Anyone working for a living must wonder how 'reward for hard work' & 'rights matched by responsibilities' fits in with the unwritten 'continue rewarding the feckless and workshy for sitting on their backsides, whilst whining about the withdrawal of the spare room subsidy'?
Very valid point. Labour party are disconnected from even these vague aims.
@RebeccaaDay: Friend drew my attention to this: posted on Oxford Univ. labour club FB page. #LabourPurge #BigBrotherIsWatchingYou http://t.co/WsTmE4hUtC
Mr. Herdson/Mr. Eagles, most evil emperor is an interesting role to consider [if we're sticking with the Romans].
Flavius Phocas has got to be a contender. Maximinus Thrax?
Hard to think of many that were evil, because [to me] that implies both cruelty and competence, and most of the cruellest emperors were also short-lived morons (yes, Antoninus Caracalla, I'm looking at you, you fratricidal [and possibly patricidal] idiot).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, the Angeli emperors were so bloody incompetent I do wonder if Angelus was the old Greek for Miliband.
In Sunday's thread, I talk about the most evil Emperor ever and how it compares to the current Labour leadership election
Ooh - a Star Wars thread?
Yup
There are those who say by electing Corbyn, Labour are committing the greatest strategic and tactical blunder since Emperor Palpatine allowed the Rebel Alliance to know the location of the second Death Star.
Comments
George has had very benign waters in which to sail thus far. We'll see how good a chancellor he is if and when the going gets a bit tougher.
From everything discussed thus far, I figure as a simple membership organisation the Labour party ballot has much lesser legal status than either an official election itself or even a union strike ballot, unless the official status of the Labour party as HM Opposition and the winner as HM LOTO means it is afforded some official protection, be it through some wierd corner of treason law or something more mundane!! Certainly, the attempts at gerrymander of the constituency here could be seen as at least as serious for the country as a whole, in that they could deny proper opposition, as any one day strike vote.
Finally given that the Tory constitution states that 'Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with Membership of or association with any other registered political party', perhaps a few Labour backbenchers could make some running for the Conservatives to expel thousands of their own members for breach of Tory party rules. (wouldn't it be fun if Grant Shapps were registered under some pseudonym
If you can't deal with the opposition's anthem you shouldn't be playing test cricket
Phone call to the England dressing room. "Hello, is Alastair there?"
"I'm afraid he's just gone out to field."
"That's OK, I'll hold."
Get Rule Britannia sung instead
This document gives some information on female candidates in 2010:
http://www.cfwd.org.uk/uploads/pdfs/WomenCandidatesApril2010.pdf
Expect it to fall at 27 on current form
Coming for to take your edge
Swing low sweet cherry cork
Coming to a-carry to Cook?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/cricket/event?id=27458859&exp=e
I passed the vetting such as it is!
Aim to have TMS on so will drive really slowly aim to arrive at destination at exactly 1pm, and set off back at 1.40 pm
Looking forward to the next couple of years, I think @JosiasJessop has asked the key question: It doesn't look to me as though anyone is. In any case the current civil war will have to exhaust itself before there is even a possibility of reconciliation. That could take a long time; Labour, in particular, has a long memory when it comes to internal feuds.
For that reason, if JC does become leader, he may well survive as leader until the next election, for want of any agreement as to who could replace him and unite the party. Even if he doesn't survive, replacing him with someone else who also fails to have the support of a large chunk of the party (even if a different chunk) won't help much. There is also the complication, with the Conservatives didn't have when IDS was defenestrated, of the icy grip of Unite on the party.
It follows IMO that those Labour supporters who are consoling themselves with the thought that electing JC would be only a temporary disaster (or who are actively supporting him in order to 'shake things up') are kidding themselves: this is a civil war which will engulf the party almost irrespective of what happens in this contest and over the next couple of years. When you add in the disaster of Scotland, the prognosis for the party cannot be anything other than dire.
Are people going to be paraded in front of a panel chaired by Tom Watson to be asked 'Are you or have you ever been a Corbynist?'
Labour set up the system. They have to live with the consequences.
One or two ominous signs on the economic horizon - IF China's growth is more like the UK's than the official numbers (7-8%), that will have a global impact not least on demand for oil and other raw materials - how will it affect Australia, Canada and similar places ?
What it may do is further postpone interest rate rises if the global economy appears to be weakening.
On the Labour leadership election, the risk of an open process is you don't know who will get involved. Had Corbyn not been standing, I wonder how many of the "£3 Socialists" on here would have bothered. The tactic of using the electoral process to produce the winner most likely to damage that Party's prospects is nothing new - it's called politics.
But that's the problem - even getting the franchise to the paid-up membership and Party officers was a struggle for both Labour and the Conservatives for decades.
So, whether it's via an open primary or by registration, if you extend the franchise to include those who may not potentially be your supporters, then you run the risk that sufficently-organised groups could disrupt the process. That in itself only happens if a) you have such a drawn-out process people have time to organise and b) there is a candidate whose perceived ability to damage the Party, if elected, is such that it encourages those ill-disposed toward the Party to join the process to ensure that happens.
http://www.cityam.com/222726/uk-house-prices-number-new-houses-being-built-has-actually-fallen?
Why would that be, do you think?
PS: Look at the housebuilders' financial results and projections. They ain't slowing down, that's for sure, although supply and labour constraints are beginning to bite.
EdM was certainly right about the result of his reforms
"Mr Miliband said his plan – to be voted on at a conference on March 1 – went further than when Mr Blair axed Clause IV of Labour’s constitution, which had committed the party to nationalisation.
‘This is bigger than Clause IV in its impact on the way it will change politics,’ he said."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565341/3-year-buy-vote-Labour-party-pledges-Ed-Miliband-bid-attract-thousands-new-supporters.html#ixzz3jLmSx6PZ
Certainly has had a seismic effect.
There's actually a moral duty for sensible Tories to vote in the Labour leadership campaign. The whole thing is such a shambles they are putting effective opposition at risk. It's in the public interest to try and avoid that - Labour is not just some rinky-dink private club.
@DearPB
Kendall is the first choice: she has serious weaknesses as a candidate and I don't think she would beat generic Tory in 2020. But she will start the process of recovery.
Corbyn is the #2 option because it will be a traumatic intervention. The next 3 years will be a disaster, but hopefully it will force Labour to re-evaluate how they are relevant to modern Britain. Hopefully before 2020 but maybe not until afterwards.
The problem with Cooper/Burnham is they won't win in 2020, but they won't progress the renewal either. So in 2020 we end up where we are today with no progress made.
I'm very keen for Labour to be a credible *opposition*
• social justice
• strong community and strong values
• reward for hard work
• decency
• rights matched by responsibilities
I don't see why any Conservative signing up couldn't honestly say he supports those, and that his membership of the Conservative Party isn't opposed to them.
https://twitter.com/NobleFrancis/status/634274490114031616
Views seem to be split. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/can-jeremy-corbyn-and-labour-mps-learn-get-along
Of course, if Corbyn and friends can get their hands on the levers of candidate approval and re/selection for long enough, they can slip enough left-wing MPs into parliament to clear the hurdle without the need for 'leant nominations'.
But a fall in the price of raw materials (whether oil, gas, coal, copper, etc.) is a direct boost for countries that are importers of these products. To use an analogy from history, the 1970s were a period when resource exporters were on top, and the 1980s were a period when resource importers were. (Interestingly, we tend to think of the US as resource rich, but it burns 16m barrels of oil per day, while producing only 9 or 10m).
High resource prices act as a tax on developed economy consumers: from an economic perspective, they are equivalent to a VAT increase, where the take is siphoned off and sent direct to Riyahd, Moscow and the like.
It is no coincidence that the 1970s were a period of weak growth in the West, and the 1980s were a period of high growth. While it is decidedly counter-consensus, the magnitude of the falls in resource prices (and the likelihood they will stay low for a considerable period of time) is an enormous kicker to the economies of the UK, Japan, South Korea, China, the US, and the Eurozone. Don't forget that a country like Spain or Japan spends 5% of GDP - give or take - on direct imports of commodities (plus, probably, another 3-4% in indirect): if the price of commodities is 50% lower in the next five years than it was in the last, then that adds 1% a year onto GDP growth.
On the flip side of the coin, it is going to be pretty miserable for the economies of oil exporting countries. People forget that one of the major reasons the Soviet Union fell apart was because the price it was getting for its major export collapsed during the 80s and early 90s.
Did Labour lose because it wasn't left-wing enough?
Far from believing the two parties were the same, voters were well aware of the difference between Miliband and Cameron
http://bit.ly/1TVbiEj
Motherhood and Apple Pie
https://twitter.com/LabourPurge
Nice metaphor, there.
https://twitter.com/RedTyneside/status/634319197808525312/photo/1
Ⓑest Ⓑet Ⓒorbyn @BBCPropaganda 16m16 minutes ago
"I'm sorry, but we are taking your £3 and not giving you anything. Please pay us £25 if you want to question this decision" #LabourPurge
Norway is probably around $50-$55 breakeven excluding fund drawdown.
(That said: Norway has fewer barrels of oil per person than Abu Dhabi or Kuwait, and its oil is more expensive, so you need to include that when thinking about their relative performance too.)
Latest figures, released by the NHS data service, showed that 30 patients were treated by the trust, which includes Dewsbury, Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals."
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/female-genital-mutilation-mid-yorkshire-9877233
*innocent face*
Nowadays, of course, we deploy them to rooms so that people can ignore them.
"The #oilprices countries need to balance budgets..."
Scotland $?
Hmm. Maybe I need to amend the Morris Dancer Manifesto on this point...
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/19/how-can-ladbrokes-take-its-share-gambling-industry/
I presume you are referring to the oil price falling again and the massive glut in the USA, not to mention China slowing down.
I think the baton of being the 'nasty' party has been passed on...
Court case. Burnham narrowly wins, gets forced to resign, Corbyn wins a second election. Etc etc.
TuskTask Force.Mid Yorkshire NHS covers a population of around 500,000, the collated national report is for the whole of NHS England and so covers a little over 50 million.
The trust reports 30 new cases out of 3963 reported nationally.
Unpleasant enough stats, but nothing particular in these local figures that indicates an outlier.
I refer you to Hasdrubal and Iberia.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, the Angeli emperors were so bloody incompetent I do wonder if Angelus was the old Greek for Miliband.
Grass your friends, for fun and profit...
After 1997, nobody seriously thought Clarke (or indeed Hague) would be Prime Minister. It was about making the most pragmatic and effective choice.
Which of course we didn't.
Not only did we miss out on the effectiveness of Clarke as a bruiser getting us back on the road to recovery, but we also saw Hague peak too soon, and missed out on the benefits of having him become leader in, say, 2003.
Now that really is hubris. Downhill now for Corbyn.
However this does confirm the point I have been making for some time. The £3entryists are not voting for leader of the Labour Party and Corbyn is not standing for leader of the Labour Party. He is standing for and they are voting for the Corbyn Party.
The Labour Party as was does not exist any more.
The people want Ed Miliband as PM.
Flavius Phocas has got to be a contender. Maximinus Thrax?
Hard to think of many that were evil, because [to me] that implies both cruelty and competence, and most of the cruellest emperors were also short-lived morons (yes, Antoninus Caracalla, I'm looking at you, you fratricidal [and possibly patricidal] idiot).
There are those who say by electing Corbyn, Labour are committing the greatest strategic and tactical blunder since Emperor Palpatine allowed the Rebel Alliance to know the location of the second Death Star.