Richard Murphy, who is seen as the architect of Mr Corbyn's economic agenda, the so-called 'Corbynomics', warned that there was "no such thing" as an independent Bank of England.
He said that if Mr Corbyn's government wanted to use the cheap money from the Bank any governor who refused to carry out the plan for "people's quantitative easing" should be "on the next plane" out of Britain.
Classy.
Actually, I agree with him on the main point. Irrespective of how nutty a government's policy is, if it has been through a proper democratic process then officials should - after due warnings - implement it.
Where something is unlawful, I think the issue is more difficult. The government could find itself facing legal action. Officials may well feel that they are entitled not to do something that is unlawful. And a government doing something against legal advice is in deep trouble. When I was a government lawyer it was impressed on us that we had immense power in the sense that no Minister wanted to take action in the face of legal advice stating that the Minister was acting contrary to legal advice.
But the political difficulties would be immense. A government which sacks its central bank governor in such circumstances would find itself in deep doo doo pretty quickly. It's not just the markets which would take fright but anyone with any assets or savings in the country. Why keep them here if you think the governent might seize them or devalue the currency that they become worthless or impose capital controls?
The whole point of the HRA and the ECHR is after all to place limits on what a goverment can do. So to say that a policy has gone through the democratic process is not enough.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I'm having nightmares that we'll elect Philip Holloborne or Liam Fox
I don't think Conservative MPs are that dim.
They put IDS in the final 2 in 2001
It is a safe assumption, given the many changes in the makeup of the parliamentary party since and also the vivid demonstration they had of the consequences that such an outcome will not happen again.
Under the Conservative system, Corbyn would be about to come plumb last. Under Labour, he will come first.
That being said, it is also hard to imagine that three such vacuous and inept personalities would be the only alternative candidates to the likes of Philip Hollobone in a forthcoming Conservative leadership race. In many ways Corbyn's dominance is a symptom of Labour's problem - its lack of serious talent. Remember Nick Robinson's remarks about the firing squad felling a generation of Labour leaders in May? It's looking more and more appropriate.
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
If they are ambitious - and many MPs are not content to stay on the back benches - then there will be no progress for them under a Corbyn party. At least, unless they do a Palmeresque damescene conversion, which holds its own dangers.
The possibility of the Labour party splitting once more is increasing. They'd remain as MPs, but in a separate party. It'll be the SDP all over again. Or join the Lib Dems.
If they are ambitious then their ambitions for office may be delayed in their realisation. However, there is plenty of space in the PLP for those that disagree with the leadership, look at Corbyn, and the wheel might turn again. But if they leave then the experience of the SDP suggests that their career in politics will be short. Better, surely, to keep taking the cash and the freebies, it is not as if they actually have to work for them.
Room for those who disagree with Corbyn? You need to re-read the 1970s and early 1980s and the activities within the CLPs to deselect sitting MPs.
I can't re-read the 1970s and 1980s as I never read them in the first place, I lived in them. However, how many Labour MPs were actually de-selected? I remember lots of sound and fury but the number of actual MPs who were chucked out for being too right wing eludes me. Maybe, this time will see a new leader purge the Party. I doubt it, not least because it would require a level of organisational skill that none of the candidates seem to possess (if they did have that level of management ability they wouldn't be in opposition).
Fair point, Mr. J., the actual gang of four did all claim their peerages in the end. Two points though: firstly, as former cabinet ministers of high rank the House of Lords was there for them regardless of the SDP. Secondly, as members of the SDP what did they actually achieve in terms of personal ambition in politics?
Plucky Brit Chris Norman and US fellow passengers Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlato are to be awarded France’s highest honour – the Légion d’honneur – by president, Francois Hollande, today for their roles in stopping a suspected terrorist attack on a train.
The train crew will be awarded the ‘Ruban jaune avec grappe de plume blanche’
I should think so. However, there is also a lighter, as well as a brighter note to that story:
Sophie David, a lawyer assigned to the case for Mr Khazzani, said the Moroccan was "dumbfounded that his act is being linked to terrorism" and that he had said he found the weapons in a Belgian park and wanted to rob passengers.
For 10 marks: 'Is this the most unconvincing defence since Newt Gingrich said he cheated on his wife because he loved his country so much?' Discuss.
No, Justin Gatlin wins that.
The US sprinter was first banned in 2002 after amphetamines were found in his system related to medication he had been taking for attention deficit disorder for 10 years. A two-year ban was later reduced to one.
His second ban in 2006, initially eight years but later halved to four, was blamed on testosterone he claimed was rubbed into his buttocks by a masseur with a grudge.
Richard Murphy, who is seen as the architect of Mr Corbyn's economic agenda, the so-called 'Corbynomics', warned that there was "no such thing" as an independent Bank of England.
He said that if Mr Corbyn's government wanted to use the cheap money from the Bank any governor who refused to carry out the plan for "people's quantitative easing" should be "on the next plane" out of Britain.
Classy.
Murphy is a Grade A moron. Such a move - people's QE - is unlawful. As well as being the quickest way to trash a currency.
If Corbyn really were to implement such a policy, it wouldn't just be the Bank Governor who would be on the next plane out of Britain.
There would be queues at Heathrow...
Why bother? There wouldn't be any fuel for aircraft, so none would be departing.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I'm having nightmares that we'll elect Philip Holloborne or Liam Fox
I don't think Conservative MPs are that dim.
They put IDS in the final 2 in 2001
It is a safe assumption, given the many changes in the makeup of the parliamentary party since and also the vivid demonstration they had of the consequences that such an outcome will not happen again.
Under the Conservative system, Corbyn would be about to come plumb last. Under Labour, he will come first.
That being said, it is also hard to imagine that three such vacuous and inept personalities would be the only alternative candidates to the likes of Philip Hollobone in a forthcoming Conservative leadership race. In many ways Corbyn's dominance is a symptom of Labour's problem - its lack of serious talent. Remember Nick Robinson's remarks about the firing squad felling a generation of Labour leaders in May? It's looking more and more appropriate.
Not at all as the right is still a significant force in the Tory Party and will ensure it has a candidate on the final 2 even if more likely to be Fox or Patterson or Grayling than IDS2
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I don't buy it most of those sort of people, and quite a lot of the LDs around here are running around saying how right-wing Cameron is, complete balls of course, but if that is their perception, we wont get their vote. Labour is more likely to split with the Blairites drifting toward the LDs, the Old Labour types joining the kippers, and the rest sitting on their hands. In the same way in 1997 the metropolitan liberal Tories voted for Blair and quite a lot of the rest sat on their hands.
As someone who did some canvassing it was the Lib Dems that won the election for the Tories.
Going into coalition with the Lib Dems was the final stage of the detoxification strategy for Dave and the Tories.
If Labour keep on putting up duffers as leaders, and the Tories occupy the centre-right ground, then all things being equal, the Tories should do well.
The two (or technically four) key stats from the election that are truly astonishing.
UKIP up 9.5% and the Tories up 0.8%
Lib Dems down 15.2% and Labour only up by 1.5%
The "plague on all your houses" voters decamped en mass from the Lib Dems to UKIP - what happens to them at the next election could be critical.
Plucky Brit Chris Norman and US fellow passengers Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlato are to be awarded France’s highest honour – the Légion d’honneur – by president, Francois Hollande, today for their roles in stopping a suspected terrorist attack on a train.
The train crew will be awarded the ‘Ruban jaune avec grappe de plume blanche’
I should think so. However, there is also a lighter, as well as a brighter note to that story:
Sophie David, a lawyer assigned to the case for Mr Khazzani, said the Moroccan was "dumbfounded that his act is being linked to terrorism" and that he had said he found the weapons in a Belgian park and wanted to rob passengers.
For 10 marks: 'Is this the most unconvincing defence since Newt Gingrich said he cheated on his wife because he loved his country so much?' Discuss.
No, Justin Gatlin wins that.
The US sprinter was first banned in 2002 after amphetamines were found in his system related to medication he had been taking for attention deficit disorder for 10 years. A two-year ban was later reduced to one.
His second ban in 2006, initially eight years but later halved to four, was blamed on testosterone he claimed was rubbed into his buttocks by a masseur with a grudge.
Oh good grief. I would say that was even more unconvincing than Khazzani's but you say the IAAF swallowed it?
I think they should be carrying out dope tests on themselves - to see if they are dopes.
Leaving aside what I think is an excessively optimistic assessment of how a Corbyn-led party would turn out, can I follow up on your comment that "if they ['things' - ?] seem to go badly then a challenge will inevitably follow next year"?
How and who? A formal challenge to a sitting leader requires (IIUIC), a third of MPs to openly nominate a stated candidate. That's a barrier that's so high as to be unreachable except perhaps to a clearly failed leader post-election, which Corbyn isn't. In any case, even if the nominations could be found, what's to stop Corbyn winning again?
Alternatively, there's informal 'pressure': resignations, refusal to serve, off-the-record briefings and so on. But would such pressure be enough to someone who has never played by the rules of front-bench politics? Would the critics not be seen as being more at blame than the leadership?
And then there's the 'who'? You'd need a replacement good enough to make the disruption worth it. Even if there's not a direct challenge, the PLP would still need to have a decent idea as to who they'd have afterwards. This generation (Burnham, Cooper etc), next one (Jarvis etc) or last one (Johnson, Harman)? And the risk of getting the wrong result is a significant inhibitor; it's why John Major survived through until 1997.
That's not to say it couldn't be done or that Corbyn wouldn't jump; just that I think it's assuming too much to state that there'd be a challenge, never mind a change, if Labour has a bad May 2016.
I'm predicting a challenge if things are obviously going badly, not necessarily a successful one - some of the earlier comments about my supposed blithe optimism overlooked the caveats. But my reading of both the membership and the MPs is that they want to (membership) or are willing to (MPs) try him but are open to rethinking if he crashes and burns. I don't think Corbyn himself is going to be glued to office in that case. Too early to say who the challengers would be.
The difficulty, as I said earlier, is that these things are rarely that clear-cut. Losing London, Scotland and the locals next May counts as crashing and burning IMO and I don't think he'd continue after that. Winning some, losing others, not so much.
Incidentally, while we natter about this and that, the world's stock markets appear to be in total meltdown. A temporary correction, or should we all be concerned?
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I'm having nightmares that we'll elect Philip Holloborne or Liam Fox
I don't think Conservative MPs are that dim.
They put IDS in the final 2 in 2001
It is a safe assumption, given the many changes in the makeup of the parliamentary party since and also the vivid demonstration they had of the consequences that such an outcome will not happen again.
Under the Conservative system, Corbyn would be about to come plumb last. Under Labour, he will come first.
That being said, it is also hard to imagine that three such vacuous and inept personalities would be the only alternative candidates to the likes of Philip Hollobone in a forthcoming Conservative leadership race. In many ways Corbyn's dominance is a symptom of Labour's problem - its lack of serious talent. Remember Nick Robinson's remarks about the firing squad felling a generation of Labour leaders in May? It's looking more and more appropriate.
Not at all as the right is still a significant force in the Tory Party and will ensure it has a candidate on the final 2 even if more likely to be Fox or Patterson or Grayling than IDS2
I should bloody well hope that "the right" is still a significant force in the Conservative Party - there would be no point to it existing if it was only made up of warmed over Blair imitators. However, unless either fall at one of the fences between now and the election, the two candidates will be Liz Truss and Sajid Javid. You read it here first, get your money on now.
Incidentally, while we natter about this and that, the world's stock markets appear to be in total meltdown. A temporary correction, or should we all be concerned?
Just an overreaction to One Direction splitting up
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
Plucky Brit Chris Norman and US fellow passengers Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlato are to be awarded France’s highest honour – the Légion d’honneur – by president, Francois Hollande, today for their roles in stopping a suspected terrorist attack on a train.
The train crew will be awarded the ‘Ruban jaune avec grappe de plume blanche’
I should think so. However, there is also a lighter, as well as a brighter note to that story:
Sophie David, a lawyer assigned to the case for Mr Khazzani, said the Moroccan was "dumbfounded that his act is being linked to terrorism" and that he had said he found the weapons in a Belgian park and wanted to rob passengers.
For 10 marks: 'Is this the most unconvincing defence since Newt Gingrich said he cheated on his wife because he loved his country so much?' Discuss.
No, Justin Gatlin wins that.
His second ban in 2006, initially eight years but later halved to four, was blamed on testosterone he claimed was rubbed into his buttocks by a masseur with a grudge.
Perhaps I should consider having testosterone rubbed into my ARSE to ensure even more phantasmagorical results.
Actually, I agree with him on the main point. Irrespective of how nutty a government's policy is, if it has been through a proper democratic process then officials should - after due warnings - implement it.
Where something is unlawful, I think the issue is more difficult. The government could find itself facing legal action. Officials may well feel that they are entitled not to do something that is unlawful. And a government doing something against legal advice is in deep trouble. When I was a government lawyer it was impressed on us that we had immense power in the sense that no Minister wanted to take action in the face of legal advice stating that the Minister was acting contrary to legal advice.
But the political difficulties would be immense. A government which sacks its central bank governor in such circumstances would find itself in deep doo doo pretty quickly. It's not just the markets which would take fright but anyone with any assets or savings in the country. Why keep them here if you think the governent might seize them or devalue the currency that they become worthless or impose capital controls?
The whole point of the HRA and the ECHR is after all to place limits on what a government can do. So to say that a policy has gone through the democratic process is not enough.
By 'the democratic process', I'm including any amending legislation necessary. I fully agree that no official should be instructed to do something against the law as it stands. But if it was in Labour's manifesto and provision to give the Chancellor power to issue instructions by Orders in Council to the BoE to engage in money printing (let's do without euphemisms) enacted, then the Governor should do as he's told if such Orders are made.
My objection to the ECHR and the HRA is precisely that it puts a limit not simply on what a government can do but on what a parliament and an electorate can do too. In fact, it's worse than that: as the one could be repealed and the other withdrawn from, they're essentially paper tigers but ones that give the illusion of power, limiting the inhibition to all to act responsibly. They're safety nets that aren't actually tied to anything. Human rights actually come from collective self-restraint; nothing more.
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
Incidentally, while we natter about this and that, the world's stock markets appear to be in total meltdown. A temporary correction, or should we all be concerned?
The difficulty, as I said earlier, is that these things are rarely that clear-cut. Losing London, Scotland and the locals next May counts as crashing and burning IMO and I don't think he'd continue after that. Winning some, losing others, not so much.
A poor, probably disastrous, performance in Scotland is nailed-on, whoever is leader. I doubt if the locals will be very good for Labour, again irrespective of leader: there's just too much work to be done, and the divisiveness of the contest is going to make that hard. London might produce a good result for Labour, but the mayoralty is very much a personal vote so I'm not sure that a result either way is going to give a very clear-cut message on Corbyn.
In other words, the results are likely to be mixed at best, but there are plenty of explanations which Labour figures will be able to come up with to rationalise the situation. I think David H has this right - Corbyn is going to be harder to shift than many think (or hope).
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
Plucky Brit Chris Norman and US fellow passengers Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlato are to be awarded France’s highest honour – the Légion d’honneur – by president, Francois Hollande, today for their roles in stopping a suspected terrorist attack on a train.
The train crew will be awarded the ‘Ruban jaune avec grappe de plume blanche’
I should think so. However, there is also a lighter, as well as a brighter note to that story:
Sophie David, a lawyer assigned to the case for Mr Khazzani, said the Moroccan was "dumbfounded that his act is being linked to terrorism" and that he had said he found the weapons in a Belgian park and wanted to rob passengers.
For 10 marks: 'Is this the most unconvincing defence since Newt Gingrich said he cheated on his wife because he loved his country so much?' Discuss.
No, Justin Gatlin wins that.
His second ban in 2006, initially eight years but later halved to four, was blamed on testosterone he claimed was rubbed into his buttocks by a masseur with a grudge.
Perhaps I should consider having testosterone rubbed into my ARSE to ensure even more phantasmagorical results.
Volunteers ... form an orderly queue please.
Watch out I see Caroline Flint at the head of the queue...!!!
Incidentally, while we natter about this and that, the world's stock markets appear to be in total meltdown. A temporary correction, or should we all be concerned?
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020
A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom
It's chaotic in both good and bad senses - compare the thread header with Jonathan's comment. .
Leaving aside what I think is an excessively optimistic assessment of how a Corbyn-led party would turn out, can I follow up on your comment that "if they ['things' - ?] seem to go badly then a challenge will inevitably follow next year"?
How and who? A formal challenge to a sitting leader requires (IIUIC), a third of MPs to openly nominate a stated candidate. That's a barrier that's so high as to be unreachable except perhaps to a clearly failed leader post-election, which Corbyn isn't. In any case, even if the nominations could be found, what's to stop Corbyn winning again?
Alternatively, there's informal 'pressure': resignations, refusal to serve, off-the-record briefings and so on. But would such pressure be enough to someone who has never played by the rules of front-bench politics? Would the critics not be seen as being more at blame than the leadership?
And then there's the 'who'? You'd need a replacement good enough to make the disruption worth it. Even if there's not a direct challenge, the PLP would still need to have a decent idea as to who they'd have afterwards. This generation (Burnham, Cooper etc), next one (Jarvis etc) or last one (Johnson, Harman)? And the risk of getting the wrong result is a significant inhibitor; it's why John Major survived through until 1997.
That's not to say it couldn't be done or that Corbyn wouldn't jump; just that I think it's assuming too much to state that there'd be a challenge, never mind a change, if Labour has a bad May 2016.
How and who?
How? - Corbyn will voluntarily step aside before the next election having achieved his ambition of changing the Labour Party agenda and processes.
Who? - with Corbyn's support, Burnham will become leader.
Richard Murphy, who is seen as the architect of Mr Corbyn's economic agenda, the so-called 'Corbynomics', warned that there was "no such thing" as an independent Bank of England.
He said that if Mr Corbyn's government wanted to use the cheap money from the Bank any governor who refused to carry out the plan for "people's quantitative easing" should be "on the next plane" out of Britain.
Classy.
I heard him on R4 this morning.
He is a buffoon of the first order - and any challenge is met with bluster - it says a lot about Corbyn that Corbyn listens to him.....
Corbyn would be a danger if he was only extremely left wing on economic matters the public do not understand so much, like central bank independence and money supply. Thankfully, he is also extremely left wing on matters that the public do understand, like supporting the IRA's position on Northern Ireland, or sharing the Falklands with Argentina.
It's chaotic in both good and bad senses - compare the thread header with Jonathan's comment. I've never known a leadership election to attract such interest - people debate it at my poker game (and believe me, it's hard to get them off the subject of Arsenal and Formula 1), at bus stops, in my apolitical office. Actual membership (not just the £3ers) is up by about 40%, and the new people mostly appear to be enthusiasts rather than fanatics. I do agree it's going on too long - opening the ballot papers about now would be sensible, not in 3 weeks. And the MPs nattering about an early challenge will find themselves on their own - people have had enough of it for now.
Some of the other comments are projected wish-fulfilment. A mass purge of members either way isn't going to happen. If Corbyn loses by a tiny margin there will be a lot of grumbling about the vetting, but otherwise members will shrug it off. If Corbyn wins, he'll surprise the wider public by mildness and inclusiveness in his early decisions. Apart from a few hotheads the PLP will largely simply wait and see - if things seem to go well for the party, mostly they'll say fine, this is better than we thought; if they seem to go badly then a challenge will inevitably follow next year. The tricky thing will be if they go sort of OK - e.g. we win London and make a bit of progress in Scotland but don't do well in the locals.
That's all maybe so? But....... In reality, despite all your good efforts, hard work, foot slogging and blogging....... You really have to know when to call it a day and simply stop trying to polish a turd.
OT Is it time to get my heating oil tank filled or should I wait another month in the hope that prices fall further (and there is slightly more space in the tank)?
How? - Corbyn will voluntarily step aside before the next election having achieved his ambition of changing the Labour Party agenda and processes.
Who? - with Corbyn's support, Burnham will become leader.
Burnham has lost stature, not gained it, as time goes on. He is beginning to look more like Labour's Portillo than ever Balls did.
If he is the best chance Labour have of restoring sanity and unity, they are more comprehensively and royally screwed than Messalina's bodyguards after one of her famous sex competitions.
An MP has said she didn't know whether to "laugh or cry" at a sexist letter that told her off for, basically, appearing on television while having breasts.
Labour's Alison McGovern, Shadow City Minister, received the letter castigating her for "so obviously" showing her cleavage when she appeared on Channel 4 News in June, opposite Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng, to discuss George Osborne's proposed bill obliging governments to run a surplus on their budgets while the economy was booming.
How is that "while having breasts"? Do you not realise that it is possible to have breasts and not to show a low cut job? Do you think a male politician going on TV in a suit and a low cut v-neck down to his mid-chest would not have received criticism?
This just seems like another attempt at crying "sexism" at any criticism of a woman.
@DPMcBride: Advice on the looming crash, No.1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work
It's chaotic in both good and bad senses - compare the thread header with Jonathan's comment. .
Leaving aside what I think is an excessively optimistic assessment of how a Corbyn-led party would turn out, can I follow up on your comment that "if they ['things' - ?] seem to go badly then a challenge will inevitably follow next year"?
How and who? A formal challenge to a sitting leader requires (IIUIC), a third of MPs to openly nominate a stated candidate. That's a barrier that's so high as to be unreachable except perhaps to a clearly failed leader post-election, which Corbyn isn't. In any case, even if the nominations could be found, what's to stop Corbyn winning again?
Alternatively, there's informal 'pressure': resignations, refusal to serve, off-the-record briefings and so on. But would such pressure be enough to someone who has never played by the rules of front-bench politics? Would the critics not be seen as being more at blame than the leadership?
And then there's the 'who'? You'd need a replacement good enough to make the disruption worth it. Even if there's not a direct challenge, the PLP would still need to have a decent idea as to who they'd have afterwards. This generation (Burnham, Cooper etc), next one (Jarvis etc) or last one (Johnson, Harman)? And the risk of getting the wrong result is a significant inhibitor; it's why John Major survived through until 1997.
That's not to say it couldn't be done or that Corbyn wouldn't jump; just that I think it's assuming too much to state that there'd be a challenge, never mind a change, if Labour has a bad May 2016.
How and who?
How? - Corbyn will voluntarily step aside before the next election having achieved his ambition of changing the Labour Party agenda and processes.
Who? - with Corbyn's support, Burnham will become leader.
Burnham? Really?
The guy who put in process the privatisation of the first NHS hospital? The scum who put the reputation of a hospital trust before the truth? The idiot who has visibly shape-shifted across the political spectrum during this campaign?
Yeah, right. Corbyn couldn't trust him to carry on any such change, in the same way the relatives of those who died at Stafford could not trust him to get to the truth.
It's chaotic in both good and bad senses - compare the thread header with Jonathan's comment. .
Leaving aside what I think is an excessively optimistic assessment of how a Corbyn-led party would turn out, can I follow up on your comment that "if they ['things' - ?] seem to go badly then a challenge will inevitably follow next year"?
How and who? A formal challenge to a sitting leader requires (IIUIC), a third of MPs to openly nominate a stated candidate. That's a barrier that's so high as to be unreachable except perhaps to a clearly failed leader post-election, which Corbyn isn't. In any case, even if the nominations could be found, what's to stop Corbyn winning again?
Alternatively, there's informal 'pressure': resignations, refusal to serve, off-the-record briefings and so on. But would such pressure be enough to someone who has never played by the rules of front-bench politics? Would the critics not be seen as being more at blame than the leadership?
And then there's the 'who'? You'd need a replacement good enough to make the disruption worth it. Even if there's not a direct challenge, the PLP would still need to have a decent idea as to who they'd have afterwards. This generation (Burnham, Cooper etc), next one (Jarvis etc) or last one (Johnson, Harman)? And the risk of getting the wrong result is a significant inhibitor; it's why John Major survived through until 1997.
That's not to say it couldn't be done or that Corbyn wouldn't jump; just that I think it's assuming too much to state that there'd be a challenge, never mind a change, if Labour has a bad May 2016.
How and who?
How? - Corbyn will voluntarily step aside before the next election having achieved his ambition of changing the Labour Party agenda and processes.
Who? - with Corbyn's support, Burnham will become leader.
Oh no he wouldn't.
Burnham, the man who couldn't beat Corbyn, will never become leader. His flush is well and truly busted.
And Corbyn won't get to choose his time of leaving - the signs of the resistance movement are already in there. When you have been defenstrated, you don't get to have much of an influence as to who your replacement will be.
@DPMcBride: Advice on the looming crash, No.1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work
And Reuters comes up with an atrocious but admittedly rather clever pun:
Great fall of China sinks world stocks, dollar tumbles
@DPMcBride: Advice on the looming crash, No.1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work
What's he trying to do, start a bank run so that Brown can return to save the world again?
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
Bugger, bugger, bugger, looks like we're not getting another Indyref until after 2020 A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom http://bit.ly/1NP2RmI
Game over then. Meat and drink to the Corbynistas. All the lefty anti Nuke/Trident peacenik ''no no let me rub the testosterone on your buttocks Mr Putin'' nutjobs in a kilt, will flock back to red flag waving hammer an' sickle Jezzbolah.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Richard Murphy, who is seen as the architect of Mr Corbyn's economic agenda, the so-called 'Corbynomics', warned that there was "no such thing" as an independent Bank of England.
He said that if Mr Corbyn's government wanted to use the cheap money from the Bank any governor who refused to carry out the plan for "people's quantitative easing" should be "on the next plane" out of Britain.
Classy.
I heard him on R4 this morning.
He is a buffoon of the first order - and any challenge is met with bluster - it says a lot about Corbyn that Corbyn listens to him.....
Corbyn would be a danger if he was only extremely left wing on economic matters the public do not understand so much, like central bank independence and money supply. Thankfully, he is also extremely left wing on matters that the public do understand, like supporting the IRA's position on Northern Ireland, or sharing the Falklands with Argentina.
Corbyn's brought all his policies into one area of his website - I dare him to open a comments section on each policy:
OT Is it time to get my heating oil tank filled or should I wait another month in the hope that prices fall further (and there is slightly more space in the tank)?
Oil prices are likely to drop further in the short term IMO (and the latest crude price falls won't yet have shown through fully in heating oil prices). But don't wait too long - heating oil prices may well rise as winter approaches.
More generally, I think the fall in crude oil prices will go into reverse in a few months' time. Very hard to predict accurately, but crude oil production deteriorates at something like 4% per annum in the absence of investment, and at the moment investment has largely stopped. Thus the current supply/demand imbalance will correct itself at some point, although the demand side is hard to predict.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I don't buy it most of those sort of people, and quite a lot of the LDs around here are running around saying how right-wing Cameron is, complete balls of course, but if that is their perception, we wont get their vote. Labour is more likely to split with the Blairites drifting toward the LDs, the Old Labour types joining the kippers, and the rest sitting on their hands. In the same way in 1997 the metropolitan liberal Tories voted for Blair and quite a lot of the rest sat on their hands.
As someone who did some canvassing it was the Lib Dems that won the election for the Tories.
Going into coalition with the Lib Dems was the final stage of the detoxification strategy for Dave and the Tories.
If Labour keep on putting up duffers as leaders, and the Tories occupy the centre-right ground, then all things being equal, the Tories should do well.
The two (or technically four) key stats from the election that are truly astonishing.
UKIP up 9.5% and the Tories up 0.8%
Lib Dems down 15.2% and Labour only up by 1.5%
The "plague on all your houses" voters decamped en mass from the Lib Dems to UKIP - what happens to them at the next election could be critical.
I think it more likely that many tactical LibDems moved back to Labour, and many old Labour moved to UKIP. That also explains the statistics and seems more reasonable.
I can see the tactical ex-LibDems coming back to LibDems in LibDem marginals removing the Tory majority and not impacting Labour seats. I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
I am absolutely sure @SeanFear has a full compliment of carbolic soap products that receive his fullest attentions.
I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
That sounds like a stretch. Old Labour can only have left Labour because it was too metropolitan liberal for their tastes, and Corbyn is another metropolitan with many of the same views they hated about New Labour, same lack of patriotism, same (worse) open door immigration forcing down their wages etc. They might get back a few of the dwindling number of voters working in mining or heavy industry, but he wouldn't get the time of day from the masses of aspirational Blue Labour white van men.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Perish the thought that we might actually expand our coalition, or even represent multiple classes of society.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I don't buy it most of those sort of people, and quite a lot of the LDs around here are running around saying how right-wing Cameron is, complete balls of course, but if that is their perception, we wont get their vote. Labour is more likely to split with the Blairites drifting toward the LDs, the Old Labour types joining the kippers, and the rest sitting on their hands. In the same way in 1997 the metropolitan liberal Tories voted for Blair and quite a lot of the rest sat on their hands.
As someone who did some canvassing it was the Lib Dems that won the election for the Tories.
Going into coalition with the Lib Dems was the final stage of the detoxification strategy for Dave and the Tories.
If Labour keep on putting up duffers as leaders, and the Tories occupy the centre-right ground, then all things being equal, the Tories should do well.
The two (or technically four) key stats from the election that are truly astonishing.
UKIP up 9.5% and the Tories up 0.8%
Lib Dems down 15.2% and Labour only up by 1.5%
The "plague on all your houses" voters decamped en mass from the Lib Dems to UKIP - what happens to them at the next election could be critical.
I think it more likely that many tactical LibDems moved back to Labour, and many old Labour moved to UKIP. That also explains the statistics and seems more reasonable.
I can see the tactical ex-LibDems coming back to LibDems in LibDem marginals removing the Tory majority and not impacting Labour seats. I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
If you want to give me your tactical voting estimates then I'll run it through my election database and report back this afternoon. 1. % of Lab/UKIP/Green vote switching to LibDem 2. % of UKIP vote switching back to Labour
Small changes can sometimes have profound effects.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
The Kippers that voted UKIP in May did so in the full knowledge that they were likely letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
I am absolutely sure @SeanFear has a full compliment of carbolic soap products that receive his fullest attentions.
IIRC Sean voted Tory in May, like a good patriot, he isn't a member of great unwashed.
Anecdote: We were recently visited by friends from the UK, a very WWC long distance truck driver and his retail manager wife who immigrated to the UK about 20 years ago. They spent most of the evening bending my ear about how bad the immigration problem was in the UK, and all they could hear walking around the supermarket was eastern European dialects and how it was a disgrace the government wasn't doing anything about it. They make a few quid on the side with a couple of BTL properties which they have spent years doing up themselves to make them profitable. They voted for Cameron earlier this year, I think he is going to struggle to get their vote next time.
There's an excellent piece by Antifrank coming up today, I'd like to stress I was NOT responsible for the subtle pop music reference contained therein.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
It does need to appeal to that part of UKIP which might be considered Conservative. eg those like Carswell. We can be that broad a church. Those form a relatively small part of 13%. A good chunk are no better in their own way than the fruit loop Corbynites and the less said about the white sheet brigade the better. 3 - 5% can be reasoned with.
Hopefully GSK won't recover it's price for another 48 hours...
FTSE 4.2% down today. It's a real meltdown following last week's slump.
Good luck with GSK. Good quality share with forward dividend yield of over 6%. I'm sitting on a 20% loss with GSK so my wishes of good luck are most sincere.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
The Kippers that voted UKIP in May did so in the full knowledge that they were likely letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
That's what I said. The Tories won on the basis of about 900 seats in 7-8 constituencies. If those had voted LD or Labour or the Kippers there would be no majority. As my anecdote just now mentioned, we are losing the WWC waverers over immigration, and the aspirational WC over the BLT robbery, and they are particularly pissed off because rich self-financing BLT landlords are untouched.
Labour are jolly lucky that the LibDems got there first in the race to implode. The main thing which mitigates against a Labour collapse is the lack of an obvious alternative on the centre-left.
UKIP, whilst it will benefit from Labour travails, doesn't seem a good enough fit to be a replacement - it's not going to attract disgruntled Blairites and left-of-centre social liberals such as Southam of this parish.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The Tories can win a majority when UKIP poll 13%, whodathunkit
If Corbyn is elected Labour leader, the Conservatives can choose anybody they like to lead them and he or she will be preferred to Corbyn.
The difficulty, as I said earlier, is that these things are rarely that clear-cut. Losing London, Scotland and the locals next May counts as crashing and burning IMO and I don't think he'd continue after that. Winning some, losing others, not so much.
A poor, probably disastrous, performance in Scotland is nailed-on, whoever is leader. I doubt if the locals will be very good for Labour, again irrespective of leader: there's just too much work to be done, and the divisiveness of the contest is going to make that hard. London might produce a good result for Labour, but the mayoralty is very much a personal vote so I'm not sure that a result either way is going to give a very clear-cut message on Corbyn.
In other words, the results are likely to be mixed at best, but there are plenty of explanations which Labour figures will be able to come up with to rationalise the situation. I think David H has this right - Corbyn is going to be harder to shift than many think (or hope).
The problem for Labour is that they're mostly defending seats they won in 2012, a fairly good year.
Hopefully GSK won't recover it's price for another 48 hours...
FTSE 4.2% down today. It's a real meltdown following last week's slump.
Good luck with GSK. Good quality share with forward dividend yield of over 6%. I'm sitting on a 20% loss with GSK so my wishes of good luck are most sincere.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
It does need to appeal to that part of UKIP which might be considered Conservative. eg those like Carswell. We can be that broad a church. Those form a relatively small part of 13%. A good chunk are no better in their own way than the fruit loop Corbynites and the less said about the white sheet brigade the better. 3 - 5% can be reasoned with.
This is the sort of snobbishness that puts off many UKIP supporters from voting for us. While every party has its extremists, there is nothing in UKIP's manifesto as extreme as Corbyn's more batty ideas. In many cases these people are both socially and economically conservative: they want to get benefits under control, encourage people to get on in life, control immigration and protect British interest abroad. They will be much easier to win back then that are hardcore supporters of Tony Blair, who was hostile to many conservative beliefs.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
I am absolutely sure @SeanFear has a full compliment of carbolic soap products that receive his fullest attentions.
IIRC Sean voted Tory in May, like a good patriot, he isn't a member of great unwashed.
I voted UKIP, because Luton South was not a marginal seat, and the Conservatives didn't treat it as such,
If I'd lived in say, Bedford, or Watford, it would be a different matter.
The question for market watchers is whether Wall Street will prolong the correction or will buyers come in and rally the market.
I suspect the latter and expect the DJIA to improve steadily from an initial fall back into positive territory and also expect the FTSE to move back higher in late trading.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
The Kippers that voted UKIP in May did so in the full knowledge that they were likely letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
So far as I can tell, most Kippers would welcome a Corbyn leadership, as it provides the opportunity to detach a section of the Labour vote.
"Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. How I wish that he were. How much easier it would make things. We could chalk all this up to the prejudices of one man and we could avoid the raw, awkward conversation we’re about to have. Because this isn’t about Jeremy Corbyn; he’s just a symptom and a symbol. The Left, and not just the fringes, has an anti-Semitism problem.
When Labour MP Paul Flynn challenged the appointment of Britain’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel, demanding instead “someone with roots in the UK” who “can’t be accused of having Jewish loyalty”, there was little more than a few murmurs.
The Liberal Democrats looked the other way when their former peer Jenny Tonge urged an inquiry into whether Israeli medics helping earthquake victims in Haiti had actually gone there to harvest their organs. That party also failed to expel ex-MP David Ward, who accused “the Jews” of “inflicting atrocities on Palestinians”.
And who would come forward to cast the first stone? The Independent, which once published a cartoon of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby? The Guardian, which marked Holocaust Memorial Day 2012 with an expose on public money going to security for Jewish schools? How about the New Statesman, publisher of a notorious cover story on the supposed “kosher conspiracy” influencing Britain?"
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I don't buy it most of those sort of people, and quite a lot of the LDs around here are running around saying how right-wing Cameron is, complete balls of course, but if that is their perception, we wont get their vote. Labour is more likely to split with the Blairites drifting toward the LDs, the Old Labour types joining the kippers, and the rest sitting on their hands. In the same way in 1997 the metropolitan liberal Tories voted for Blair and quite a lot of the rest sat on their hands.
As someone who did some canvassing it was the Lib Dems that won the election for the Tories.
Going into coalition with the Lib Dems was the final stage of the detoxification strategy for Dave and the Tories.
If Labour keep on putting up duffers as leaders, and the Tories occupy the centre-right ground, then all things being equal, the Tories should do well.
The two (or technically four) key stats from the election that are truly astonishing.
UKIP up 9.5% and the Tories up 0.8%
Lib Dems down 15.2% and Labour only up by 1.5%
The "plague on all your houses" voters decamped en mass from the Lib Dems to UKIP - what happens to them at the next election could be critical.
I think it more likely that many tactical LibDems moved back to Labour, and many old Labour moved to UKIP. That also explains the statistics and seems more reasonable.
I can see the tactical ex-LibDems coming back to LibDems in LibDem marginals removing the Tory majority and not impacting Labour seats. I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
If you want to give me your tactical voting estimates then I'll run it through my election database and report back this afternoon. 1. % of Lab/UKIP/Green vote switching to LibDem 2. % of UKIP vote switching back to Labour
Small changes can sometimes have profound effects.
1. In CON/LD marginals I could see the Lab vote being resqueezed back to half the 2015 number, i.e. 50% of LAB switching to LDs (but only in CON/LD marginals). 2. I could see 30% of the UKIP vote switching back to LAB.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
The Kippers that voted UKIP in May did so in the full knowledge that they were likely letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
So far as I can tell, most Kippers would welcome a Corbyn leadership, as it provides the opportunity to detach a section of the Labour vote.
FYI - The great unwashed was meant in jest.
The issue I see which is troubling for the Tories is they might have to appeal to their flank to keep power which annoys their right flank.
If they appeal to their right flank, they might annoy their left flank.
A majority of 12 is precarious.
That said Corbyn, has made the Tory majority in the House effectively 36 now, as I can't see the DUP/UUP ever aligning themselves with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I don't buy it most of those sort of people, and quite a lot of the LDs around here are running around saying how right-wing Cameron is, complete balls of course, but if that is their perception, we wont get their vote. Labour is more likely to split with the Blairites drifting toward the LDs, the Old Labour types joining the kippers, and the rest sitting on their hands. In the same way in 1997 the metropolitan liberal Tories voted for Blair and quite a lot of the rest sat on their hands.
As someone who did some canvassing it was the Lib Dems that won the election for the Tories.
Going into coalition with the Lib Dems was the final stage of the detoxification strategy for Dave and the Tories.
If Labour keep on putting up duffers as leaders, and the Tories occupy the centre-right ground, then all things being equal, the Tories should do well.
The two (or technically four) key stats from the election that are truly astonishing.
UKIP up 9.5% and the Tories up 0.8%
Lib Dems down 15.2% and Labour only up by 1.5%
The "plague on all your houses" voters decamped en mass from the Lib Dems to UKIP - what happens to them at the next election could be critical.
I think it more likely that many tactical LibDems moved back to Labour, and many old Labour moved to UKIP. That also explains the statistics and seems more reasonable.
I can see the tactical ex-LibDems coming back to LibDems in LibDem marginals removing the Tory majority and not impacting Labour seats. I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
If you want to give me your tactical voting estimates then I'll run it through my election database and report back this afternoon. 1. % of Lab/UKIP/Green vote switching to LibDem 2. % of UKIP vote switching back to Labour
Small changes can sometimes have profound effects.
1. In CON/LD marginals I could see the Lab vote being resqueezed back to half the 2015 number, i.e. 50% of LAB switching to LDs (but only in CON/LD marginals). 2. I could see 30% of the UKIP vote switching back to LAB.
I could see 10% or so of the Labour vote switching to UKIP.
OT Is it time to get my heating oil tank filled or should I wait another month in the hope that prices fall further (and there is slightly more space in the tank)?
Oil prices are likely to drop further in the short term IMO (and the latest crude price falls won't yet have shown through fully in heating oil prices). But don't wait too long - heating oil prices may well rise as winter approaches.
More generally, I think the fall in crude oil prices will go into reverse in a few months' time. Very hard to predict accurately, but crude oil production deteriorates at something like 4% per annum in the absence of investment, and at the moment investment has largely stopped. Thus the current supply/demand imbalance will correct itself at some point, although the demand side is hard to predict.
On the other hand prices have fallen even though we are in the middle of the US 'driving season'. Production needs to fall significantly and/or be priced out of business first. Commodity prices generally are falling. For mature economies like ours, this is a good thing. For China - it needs to morph into a more sustainable phase of growth. For Scotland - it marks a new phase of making excuses for putting off the next referendum.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
The Kippers that voted UKIP in May did so in the full knowledge that they were likely letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
So far as I can tell, most Kippers would welcome a Corbyn leadership, as it provides the opportunity to detach a section of the Labour vote.
FYI - The great unwashed was meant in jest.
The issue I see which is troubling for the Tories is they might have to appeal to their flank to keep power which annoys their right flank.
If they appeal to their right flank, they might annoy their left flank.
A majority of 12 is precarious.
That said Corbyn, has made the Tory majority in the House effectively 36 now, as I can't see the DUP/UUP ever aligning themselves with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
Labour are jolly lucky that the LibDems got there first in the race to implode. The main thing which mitigates against a Labour collapse is the lack of an obvious alternative on the centre-left.
UKIP, whilst it will benefit from Labour travails, doesn't seem a good enough fit to be a replacement - it's not going to attract disgruntled Blairites and left-of-centre social liberals such as Southam of this parish.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The Tories can win a majority when UKIP poll 13%, whodathunkit
If Corbyn is elected Labour leader, the Conservatives can choose anybody they like to lead them and he or she will be preferred to Corbyn.
But we need to think beyond 2020. To date, the working class have been the hardest part of the UK electorate for Conservatives to reach. Many have a long-ingrained culture of Labour being the party of the working man, and the Conservatives being the party of the rich. But a Corbyn-led Labour party, with Khan as the Labour mayoral candidate, will reveal to them that Labour are not in tune with British working class views. They will start looking around to other parties, and the most likely candidates are UKIP or the Conservatives.
This is a unique opportunity for the Tories. Once people put the cross in the box for us once, it becomes less toxic to do so again. The instinctive barrier that stops many people who like our ideas voting for us because we're "bloody Tories" is forever eliminated for them. Thatcher won a whole category of working class people over to our way of thinking: they adopted our values and supported a political revolution that allowed many of them to become middle class. We need to do that again.
The Zoomer line on here yesterday was that nobody in Scotland was talking about the price of oil.
Today the front page of the Daily Zoomer, sorry, the Nat onal, is dedicated to the price of oil.
Don't blame me when Zoomer central makes you and your pals look like chumps.
Errr, it's not about the price of oil, it's about how the industry reported figures for the cost of production are opaque and possibly inflated to make the sector seem like it is less profitable than it is.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
The Kippers that voted UKIP in May did so in the full knowledge that they were likely letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
So far as I can tell, most Kippers would welcome a Corbyn leadership, as it provides the opportunity to detach a section of the Labour vote.
FYI - The great unwashed was meant in jest.
The issue I see which is troubling for the Tories is they might have to appeal to their flank to keep power which annoys their right flank.
If they appeal to their right flank, they might annoy their left flank.
A majority of 12 is precarious.
That said Corbyn, has made the Tory majority in the House effectively 36 now, as I can't see the DUP/UUP ever aligning themselves with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
The DUP aren't too keen on Austerity?
They'd rather prefer British Austerity to a United Ireland largesse
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
The next leader also has to appeal to the 13% that voted UKIP and the many working class Labour voters that will be put off by Corbyn's pro-immigration, pro-Hamas, pro-IRA, anti-monarchy position.
We won without that great unwashed mob, we don't need them.
Unless that 900 odd people in marginal constituencies decide to vote for someone else next time, in which case the kippers are our friends again. Might be cutting it a bit fine imo.
The Kippers that voted UKIP in May did so in the full knowledge that they were likely letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
The issue I see which is troubling for the Tories is they might have to appeal to their flank to keep power which annoys their right flank.
If they appeal to their right flank, they might annoy their left flank.
A majority of 12 is precarious.
That said Corbyn, has made the Tory majority in the House effectively 36 now, as I can't see the DUP/UUP ever aligning themselves with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
And, that becomes a majority of 42, once you remove Sinn Fein and the Speaker. My guess is that another 10-20 Labour seats would be very vulnerable to the Tories if Corbyn becomes leader, including some of the losses in May, plus Stoke South, Southampton Test, Newcastle under Lyme, Bridgend, Ynys Mon, Barrow, Middlesborough East, Derbyshire NE,
@DPMcBride: Advice on the looming crash, No.1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work
And Reuters comes up with an atrocious but admittedly rather clever pun:
Great fall of China sinks world stocks, dollar tumbles
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I don't buy it most of those sort of people, and quite a lot of the LDs around here are running around saying how right-wing Cameron is, complete balls of course, but if that is their perception, we wont get their vote. Labour is more likely to split with the Blairites drifting toward the LDs, the Old Labour types joining the kippers, and the rest sitting on their hands. In the same way in 1997 the metropolitan liberal Tories voted for Blair and quite a lot of the rest sat on their hands.
As someone who did some canvassing it was the Lib Dems that won the election for the Tories.
Going into coalition with the Lib Dems was the final stage of the detoxification strategy for Dave and the Tories.
If Labour keep on putting up duffers as leaders, and the Tories occupy the centre-right ground, then all things being equal, the Tories should do well.
The two (or technically four) key stats from the election that are truly astonishing.
UKIP up 9.5% and the Tories up 0.8%
Lib Dems down 15.2% and Labour only up by 1.5%
The "plague on all your houses" voters decamped en mass from the Lib Dems to UKIP - what happens to them at the next election could be critical.
I think it more likely that many tactical LibDems moved back to Labour, and many old Labour moved to UKIP. That also explains the statistics and seems more reasonable.
I can see the tactical ex-LibDems coming back to LibDems in LibDem marginals removing the Tory majority and not impacting Labour seats. I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
If you want to give me your tactical voting estimates then I'll run it through my election database and report back this afternoon. 1. % of Lab/UKIP/Green vote switching to LibDem 2. % of UKIP vote switching back to Labour
Small changes can sometimes have profound effects.
1. In CON/LD marginals I could see the Lab vote being resqueezed back to half the 2015 number, i.e. 50% of LAB switching to LDs (but only in CON/LD marginals). 2. I could see 30% of the UKIP vote switching back to LAB.
I could see 10% or so of the Labour vote switching to UKIP.
That said Corbyn, has made the Tory majority in the House effectively 36 now, as I can't see the DUP/UUP ever aligning themselves with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
The DUP aren't too keen on Austerity?
However, I think the DUP prefer Austerity to handing Northern Ireland over to the Suoth.
The issue I see which is troubling for the Tories is they might have to appeal to their flank to keep power which annoys their right flank.
If they appeal to their right flank, they might annoy their left flank.
A majority of 12 is precarious.
That said Corbyn, has made the Tory majority in the House effectively 36 now, as I can't see the DUP/UUP ever aligning themselves with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
The key is to stop thinking in terms of "left" and "right", or at least how they are defined by the chattering classes. You adopt policies that are both "left" and "right", as long as they are consistent with our values, to develop a winnable coalition. So you focus on reducing discrimination, sound fiscal policy and looking after our environment for the middle class liberals, while focus on limiting unskilled immigration, reducing EU meddling and creating more homes for the working class.
That's why Dave's successor has to be a One Nation Tory, to appeal to all those disgruntled Blairites and left of centre social liberals.
Precisely.
I don't buy it most of those sort of people, and quite a lot of the LDs around here are running around saying how right-wing Cameron is, complete balls of course, but if that is their perception, we wont vote. Labour is more likely to split with the Blairites drifting toward the LDs, the Old Labour types joining the kippers, and the rest sitting on their hands. In the same way in 1997 the metropolitan liberal Tories voted for Blair and quite a lot of the rest sat on their hands.
As someone who did some canvassing it was the Lib Dems that won the election for the Tories.
Going into coalition with the Lib Dems was the final stage of the detoxification strategy for Dave and the Tories.
If Labour keep on putting up duffers as leaders, and the Tories occupy the centre-right ground, then all things being equal, the Tories should do well.
The two (or technically four) key stats from the election that are truly astonishing.
UKIP up 9.5% and the Tories up 0.8%
Lib Dems down 15.2% and Labour only up by 1.5%
.
I think it more likely that many tactical LibDems moved back to Labour, and many old Labour moved to UKIP. That also explains the statistics and seems more reasonable.
I can see the tactical ex-LibDems coming back to LibDems in LibDem marginals removing the Tory majority and not impacting Labour seats. I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
If you want to give me your tactical voting estimates then I'll run it through my election database and report back this afternoon. 1. % of Lab/UKIP/Green vote switching to LibDem 2. % of UKIP vote switching back to Labour
Small changes can sometimes have profound effects.
1. In CON/LD marginals I could see the Lab vote being resqueezed back to half the 2015 number, i.e. 50% of LAB switching to LDs (but only in CON/LD marginals). 2. I could see 30% of the UKIP vote switching back to LAB.
I could see 10% or so of the Labour vote switching to UKIP.
I can see Mystic Meg spinning in her grave.
The Sunil on Sunday's resident clairvoyant, Mystic Smeg, confidently predicts that one of the four Labour leadership candidates will win the election!
Comments
Where something is unlawful, I think the issue is more difficult. The government could find itself facing legal action. Officials may well feel that they are entitled not to do something that is unlawful. And a government doing something against legal advice is in deep trouble. When I was a government lawyer it was impressed on us that we had immense power in the sense that no Minister wanted to take action in the face of legal advice stating that the Minister was acting contrary to legal advice.
But the political difficulties would be immense. A government which sacks its central bank governor in such circumstances would find itself in deep doo doo pretty quickly. It's not just the markets which would take fright but anyone with any assets or savings in the country. Why keep them here if you think the governent might seize them or devalue the currency that they become worthless or impose capital controls?
The whole point of the HRA and the ECHR is after all to place limits on what a goverment can do. So to say that a policy has gone through the democratic process is not enough.
Under the Conservative system, Corbyn would be about to come plumb last. Under Labour, he will come first.
That being said, it is also hard to imagine that three such vacuous and inept personalities would be the only alternative candidates to the likes of Philip Hollobone in a forthcoming Conservative leadership race. In many ways Corbyn's dominance is a symptom of Labour's problem - its lack of serious talent. Remember Nick Robinson's remarks about the firing squad felling a generation of Labour leaders in May? It's looking more and more appropriate.
I shall be investigating ancestral and historical records for dangerous Whiggish tendencies and such research will attract a 5,000 guinea fee.
@JosiasJessup
Fair point, Mr. J., the actual gang of four did all claim their peerages in the end. Two points though: firstly, as former cabinet ministers of high rank the House of Lords was there for them regardless of the SDP. Secondly, as members of the SDP what did they actually achieve in terms of personal ambition in politics?
No, Justin Gatlin wins that.
The US sprinter was first banned in 2002 after amphetamines were found in his system related to medication he had been taking for attention deficit disorder for 10 years. A two-year ban was later reduced to one.
His second ban in 2006, initially eight years but later halved to four, was blamed on testosterone he claimed was rubbed into his buttocks by a masseur with a grudge.
There would be queues at Heathrow...
Why bother? There wouldn't be any fuel for aircraft, so none would be departing.
Pay me £2k and I'll get you a vote free....
Say what you like but the Nats are some of the most generous people about.
Or innumerate.
The US sprinter was first banned in 2002 after amphetamines were found in his system related to medication he had been taking for attention deficit disorder for 10 years. A two-year ban was later reduced to one.
His second ban in 2006, initially eight years but later halved to four, was blamed on testosterone he claimed was rubbed into his buttocks by a masseur with a grudge.
Oh good grief. I would say that was even more unconvincing than Khazzani's but you say the IAAF swallowed it?
I think they should be carrying out dope tests on themselves - to see if they are dopes.
The difficulty, as I said earlier, is that these things are rarely that clear-cut. Losing London, Scotland and the locals next May counts as crashing and burning IMO and I don't think he'd continue after that. Winning some, losing others, not so much.
His second ban in 2006, initially eight years but later halved to four, was blamed on testosterone he claimed was rubbed into his buttocks by a masseur with a grudge.
Perhaps I should consider having testosterone rubbed into my ARSE to ensure even more phantasmagorical results.
Volunteers ... form an orderly queue please.
My objection to the ECHR and the HRA is precisely that it puts a limit not simply on what a government can do but on what a parliament and an electorate can do too. In fact, it's worse than that: as the one could be repealed and the other withdrawn from, they're essentially paper tigers but ones that give the illusion of power, limiting the inhibition to all to act responsibly. They're safety nets that aren't actually tied to anything. Human rights actually come from collective self-restraint; nothing more.
Send for Gordon to save the world .... again.
In other words, the results are likely to be mixed at best, but there are plenty of explanations which Labour figures will be able to come up with to rationalise the situation. I think David H has this right - Corbyn is going to be harder to shift than many think (or hope).
No it's apparently an indeterminate period determined only by the chances of winning a vote
The (SNP) MP added: “We can’t afford to lose another [referendum] or the cause really will be lost for a generation.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/senior-snp-sources-in-warning-over-second-indyref-1-3867035
Real bear drops tend to come out of the blue, and when nobody is predicting them.
Volunteers ... form an orderly queue please.
Watch out I see Caroline Flint at the head of the queue...!!!
http://cicerossongs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/hindsight-is-20-20.html
It's interesting he predicted a rapid fall int he price of oil, even though he got the reason so wrong.
How? - Corbyn will voluntarily step aside before the next election having achieved his ambition of changing the Labour Party agenda and processes.
Who? - with Corbyn's support, Burnham will become leader.
He is a buffoon of the first order - and any challenge is met with bluster - it says a lot about Corbyn that Corbyn listens to him.....
Corbyn would be a danger if he was only extremely left wing on economic matters the public do not understand so much, like central bank independence and money supply. Thankfully, he is also extremely left wing on matters that the public do understand, like supporting the IRA's position on Northern Ireland, or sharing the Falklands with Argentina.
If he is the best chance Labour have of restoring sanity and unity, they are more comprehensively and royally screwed than Messalina's bodyguards after one of her famous sex competitions.
This just seems like another attempt at crying "sexism" at any criticism of a woman.
@DPMcBride: Advice on the looming crash, No.1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work
The guy who put in process the privatisation of the first NHS hospital? The scum who put the reputation of a hospital trust before the truth? The idiot who has visibly shape-shifted across the political spectrum during this campaign?
Yeah, right. Corbyn couldn't trust him to carry on any such change, in the same way the relatives of those who died at Stafford could not trust him to get to the truth.
ABIS.
Burnham, the man who couldn't beat Corbyn, will never become leader. His flush is well and truly busted.
And Corbyn won't get to choose his time of leaving - the signs of the resistance movement are already in there. When you have been defenstrated, you don't get to have much of an influence as to who your replacement will be.
Meat and drink to the Corbynistas. All the lefty anti Nuke/Trident peacenik ''no no let me rub the testosterone on your buttocks Mr Putin'' nutjobs in a kilt, will flock back to red flag waving hammer an' sickle Jezzbolah.
Corbyn's brought all his policies into one area of his website - I dare him to open a comments section on each policy:
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/policy
More generally, I think the fall in crude oil prices will go into reverse in a few months' time. Very hard to predict accurately, but crude oil production deteriorates at something like 4% per annum in the absence of investment, and at the moment investment has largely stopped. Thus the current supply/demand imbalance will correct itself at some point, although the demand side is hard to predict.
I can see the tactical ex-LibDems coming back to LibDems in LibDem marginals removing the Tory majority and not impacting Labour seats. I can also see ex-Old Labour leaving UKIP (after the referendum is done and dusted) attracted by a more left wing traditional Labour party.
http://www.capx.co/the-ten-issues-that-could-divide-the-conservative-party/
Just applied for a Stocks and Shares ISA ^_~
Hopefully GSK won't recover it's price for another 48 hours...
1. % of Lab/UKIP/Green vote switching to LibDem
2. % of UKIP vote switching back to Labour
Small changes can sometimes have profound effects.
I suspect they won't care about putting Corbyn into Dowing Street.
The Tories need to hold and build upon on the majority winning coalition they have built up.
There's an excellent piece by Antifrank coming up today, I'd like to stress I was NOT responsible for the subtle pop music reference contained therein.
Those form a relatively small part of 13%. A good chunk are no better in their own way than the fruit loop Corbynites and the less said about the white sheet brigade the better. 3 - 5% can be reasoned with.
Good luck with GSK. Good quality share with forward dividend yield of over 6%. I'm sitting on a 20% loss with GSK so my wishes of good luck are most sincere.
If I'd lived in say, Bedford, or Watford, it would be a different matter.
The question for market watchers is whether Wall Street will prolong the correction or will buyers come in and rally the market.
I suspect the latter and expect the DJIA to improve steadily from an initial fall back into positive territory and also expect the FTSE to move back higher in late trading.
Hopefully they were not reinvested in FTSE trackers on 7/5/15
"Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. How I wish that he were. How much easier it would make things. We could chalk all this up to the prejudices of one man and we could avoid the raw, awkward conversation we’re about to have. Because this isn’t about Jeremy Corbyn; he’s just a symptom and a symbol. The Left, and not just the fringes, has an anti-Semitism problem.
When Labour MP Paul Flynn challenged the appointment of Britain’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel, demanding instead “someone with roots in the UK” who “can’t be accused of having Jewish loyalty”, there was little more than a few murmurs.
The Liberal Democrats looked the other way when their former peer Jenny Tonge urged an inquiry into whether Israeli medics helping earthquake victims in Haiti had actually gone there to harvest their organs. That party also failed to expel ex-MP David Ward, who accused “the Jews” of “inflicting atrocities on Palestinians”.
And who would come forward to cast the first stone? The Independent, which once published a cartoon of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby? The Guardian, which marked Holocaust Memorial Day 2012 with an expose on public money going to security for Jewish schools? How about the New Statesman, publisher of a notorious cover story on the supposed “kosher conspiracy” influencing Britain?"
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1327077-stephen-daisley-on-jeremy-corbyn-the-left-anti-semitism-and-israel/
2. I could see 30% of the UKIP vote switching back to LAB.
The issue I see which is troubling for the Tories is they might have to appeal to their flank to keep power which annoys their right flank.
If they appeal to their right flank, they might annoy their left flank.
A majority of 12 is precarious.
That said Corbyn, has made the Tory majority in the House effectively 36 now, as I can't see the DUP/UUP ever aligning themselves with a Corbyn led party or triggering the fall of a Tory government.
Maybe, but is this the bottom? I reckon we might be getting close...
Excellent PB Tory Propaganda Piece, Mike!
Production needs to fall significantly and/or be priced out of business first.
Commodity prices generally are falling. For mature economies like ours, this is a good thing. For China - it needs to morph into a more sustainable phase of growth.
For Scotland - it marks a new phase of making excuses for putting off the next referendum.
This is a unique opportunity for the Tories. Once people put the cross in the box for us once, it becomes less toxic to do so again. The instinctive barrier that stops many people who like our ideas voting for us because we're "bloody Tories" is forever eliminated for them. Thatcher won a whole category of working class people over to our way of thinking: they adopted our values and supported a political revolution that allowed many of them to become middle class. We need to do that again.
Have they been Peking into the future?