Very intriguing that Labour are noting the distinction between pre-May members and new joiners. Looks like that [probably in combination with leaked breakdown of results] will be used to delegitimise Corbyn as and when.
The headline on that politics.co.uk article is pretty unfair. He didn't say the time isn't right for a female leader. He just said that neither of the women in the contest would be "the right candidate"; i.e. Cooper and Kendall are even crapper than he is. How's that sexist?
WRONG
Asked whether it would be "great" to have a woman leader, Burnham replied: "When the time is right, when the right leader comes along".
The headline is totally fair.
It's out of context. He's saying the time isn't right because neither of the only possible candidates are any good. The headline clearly implies that he thinks there's something innately wrong with having a woman leader.
He should have chosen his words more carefully.
This was an obvious question that was going to be put to him at some time and he should have had a form of words worked out. He didn't.
Why wasn't there a woman in the Lib Dem leadership election?
NO women MP's IIRC
Perhaps they should get one of their MPs to stand down so they can get a woman elected. Purely in the interests of diversity. Their record indicates they badly need to do something.
Do they have a discredited and widely ridiculed MP who is costing them support they might persuade to step aside?
The headline on that politics.co.uk article is pretty unfair. He didn't say the time isn't right for a female leader. He just said that neither of the women in the contest would be "the right candidate"; i.e. Cooper and Kendall are even crapper than he is. How's that sexist?
WRONG
Asked whether it would be "great" to have a woman leader, Burnham replied: "When the time is right, when the right leader comes along".
The headline is totally fair.
It's out of context. He's saying the time isn't right because neither of the only possible candidates are any good. The headline clearly implies that he thinks there's something innately wrong with having a woman leader.
He should have chosen his words more carefully.
This was an obvious question that was going to be put to him at some time and he should have had a form of words worked out. He didn't.
Why wasn't there a woman in the Lib Dem leadership election?
NO women MP's IIRC
Perhaps they should get one of their MPs to stand down so they can get a woman elected. Purely in the interests of diversity. Their record indicates they badly need to do something.
Do they have a discredited and widely ridiculed MP who is costing them support they might persuade to step aside?
Wouldn't that plan only work if the SNP candidate was a woman?
The headline on that politics.co.uk article is pretty unfair. He didn't say the time isn't right for a female leader. He just said that neither of the women in the contest would be "the right candidate"; i.e. Cooper and Kendall are even crapper than he is. How's that sexist?
WRONG
Asked whether it would be "great" to have a woman leader, Burnham replied: "When the time is right, when the right leader comes along".
The headline is totally fair.
It's out of context. He's saying the time isn't right because neither of the only possible candidates are any good. The headline clearly implies that he thinks there's something innately wrong with having a woman leader.
He should have chosen his words more carefully.
This was an obvious question that was going to be put to him at some time and he should have had a form of words worked out. He didn't.
Why wasn't there a woman in the Lib Dem leadership election?
NO women MP's IIRC
Maybe they need their own Conchita Wurst. Labour has found one!
No, seriously, this long drawn out leader election process, shows the aged, decayed and defective body politic of the Labour party. It creaks and stutters into a shambling movement then lays exausted, tongue out, on the pavement of the MSM, where even it's supporters throw few coppers of cheer.
Can UKIP take advantage of Labours dilemma? Not at the moment, and I say this sadly. UKIP has to iron out it's own creaks and knots before it can act with conviction.
Whereas UKIP's process is:
"I resign." Followed a few days later by: "Now I've unresigned"
UKIP should be thanked for providing us with the first belly laugh of what's been a brilliant post-election time for politics watchers.
Very intriguing that Labour are noting the distinction between pre-May members and new joiners. Looks like that [probably in combination with leaked breakdown of results] will be used to delegitimise Corbyn as and when.
Surely such a leak would implicate the ERS?
Labour can ask the ERS for a breakdown [just as they had last time] and then not publish it as a matter of party policy.
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol SE East 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol East 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
I wouldn't be that surprised to see Ed look for a by-election after the leadership contest is over, despite loyal protestations to the contrary so far.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol SE 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
The headline on that politics.co.uk article is pretty unfair. He didn't say the time isn't right for a female leader. He just said that neither of the women in the contest would be "the right candidate"; i.e. Cooper and Kendall are even crapper than he is. How's that sexist?
WRONG
Asked whether it would be "great" to have a woman leader, Burnham replied: "When the time is right, when the right leader comes along".
The headline is totally fair.
It's out of context. He's saying the time isn't right because neither of the only possible candidates are any good. The headline clearly implies that he thinks there's something innately wrong with having a woman leader.
He should have chosen his words more carefully.
This was an obvious question that was going to be put to him at some time and he should have had a form of words worked out. He didn't.
Why wasn't there a woman in the Lib Dem leadership election?
NO women MP's IIRC
That hasn't always been the case though. I don't think there's ever been a female candidate in a Lib Dem leadership contest, has there?
"Harriet Harman has said 3,000 alleged "cheats" have so far been excluded from voting in the Labour leadership contest, with more expected...... She said the process was strictly impartial but voters had to support the party's aims and values, which are set out in Clause IV of its rule book." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34047788
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol East 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
Didn't you have a role in the defenestration or emasculation of Ed B?
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol East 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
No, seriously, this long drawn out leader election process, shows the aged, decayed and defective body politic of the Labour party. It creaks and stutters into a shambling movement then lays exausted, tongue out, on the pavement of the MSM, where even it's supporters throw few coppers of cheer.
Can UKIP take advantage of Labours dilemma? Not at the moment, and I say this sadly. UKIP has to iron out it's own creaks and knots before it can act with conviction.
Admittedly my lot are very quiet but that may not be a bad thing, a rethink and come back refreshed is sensible. Far better than a half baked, ill conceived attack that gives our detractors ammunition. The referendum will give ukip plenty of publicity, I'm not sure what happens afterwards, regardless of the result.
The headline on that politics.co.uk article is pretty unfair. He didn't say the time isn't right for a female leader. He just said that neither of the women in the contest would be "the right candidate"; i.e. Cooper and Kendall are even crapper than he is. How's that sexist?
WRONG
Asked whether it would be "great" to have a woman leader, Burnham replied: "When the time is right, when the right leader comes along".
The headline is totally fair.
It's out of context. He's saying the time isn't right because neither of the only possible candidates are any good. The headline clearly implies that he thinks there's something innately wrong with having a woman leader.
He should have chosen his words more carefully.
This was an obvious question that was going to be put to him at some time and he should have had a form of words worked out. He didn't.
Why wasn't there a woman in the Lib Dem leadership election?
NO women MP's IIRC
Maybe they need their own Conchita Wurst. Labour has found one!
"Harriet Harman has said 3,000 alleged "cheats" have so far been excluded from voting in the Labour leadership contest, with more expected...... She said the process was strictly impartial but voters had to support the party's aims and values, which are set out in Clause IV of its rule book." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34047788
Mr. F, I quite agree with you on foreign policy. We get blamed if we intervene a lot (Iraq), somewhat (Libya) and not at all (Syria).
I've mentioned before that I recall at the time of the inital Coup in the Central African Republic a few years ago the reports from the ground included criticism that France was not doing enough to help, which is a point of view, but more than that had a responsibility to sort things out during the mess and some locals were expressing anger at the forfeiting of that responsibility. Now, while it probably does bear at least some measure of culpability for how the country has developed - I do not know the country so could not say to what extent - I was astounded at the idea they retained a 'responsibility' to resolve the internal difficulties of an indepenent country. Even if it would be a very good idea for them and the CAR - and again I don't know if that is the case or not - it would surely not be a responsibility
Isn't it rather rich to complain that the Middle East should sort out its own problems when we are actively involving ourselves IN the Middle East? Had it not been for our intervention, Gadaffi would still be in power in Libya, and Assad would be in full power of Syria. Neither being ideal, but neither being chaotic bloodbaths inspiring mass refugee crises. Perhaps if we stopped intervening, they might find a way to sort themselves out."
Assad lost control, despite the West not intervening in Syria. The West would have to intervene heavily on his behalf for him to remain in power.
In Libya, it was choice between overthrowing Gadaffi, or letting him massacre his enemies, and he might still have been overthrown in any case. Either way, people would have fled across the Mediterranean.
I don't think it's true at all that Assad would be in full power in Syria without us. He had already lost control of huge swathes of his country to rebels, long before we stepped in.
From the people that brought you 'Assad's regime is on the brink of collapse' 5 years ago, 'FSA are nice democrats (please ignore the cannabalism)', 'Assad likes to fire chlorine at civilians when weapons inspectors are nearby', and other fairy stories.
Why wasn't there a woman in the Lib Dem leadership election?
NO women MP's IIRC That hasn't always been the case though. I don't think there's ever been a female candidate in a Lib Dem leadership contest, has there?
Memory failing you, Mr Herdson. There was Jackie Ballard - when Paddy stood down, IIRC.
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol East 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
Although very much the also-ran of the trio.
Hertford & Stevenage 1979 was quite important.
In 1974, Baroness Williams twice defeated a former local MP my way...
"Harriet Harman has said 3,000 alleged "cheats" have so far been excluded from voting in the Labour leadership contest, with more expected...... She said the process was strictly impartial but voters had to support the party's aims and values, which are set out in Clause IV of its rule book." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34047788
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Nearly all these members are going to be nutters, Trots, SWPers, Stop the War hipsters with Tourettes, mad people, really mad people, Islamists, Respect members, Holocaust deniers, homeless Marxists, antisemites, TUSC members, 17 year olds, econazis, and cats.
This is the new Labour party. The surge in members is not a boon for Labour, its a catastrophe. Your party is about to swing wildly to the far left, after badly losing an election because it was too leftwing already.
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Entry Here...
Are there really that many crazy people out there? Seems astounding, but we shall find out I guess.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
"Harriet Harman has said 3,000 alleged "cheats" have so far been excluded from voting in the Labour leadership contest, with more expected...... She said the process was strictly impartial but voters had to support the party's aims and values, which are set out in Clause IV of its rule book." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34047788
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol East 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
Although very much the also-ran of the trio.
Hertford & Stevenage 1979 was quite important.
Not necessarily if Corbyn wins, depending on what follows. It certainly could be at least as important as Portillo's defeat. If Labour does descend into factionalism and/or unelectability, never mind if there's a new split, the 2015 leadership election will be seen in the same light at the 1981 deputy leadership one.
All this assumes that Balls could have seen off Corbyn, which he may not have done, but he'd have given him a better run for his money (assuming Cooper stood aside for him, which she may not have done).
Listening to Yvette, who I am glad I have backed btw (have I mentioned that already?), it is difficult not to wonder what on earth Mr Cooper must be thinking.
The only credible and best big beast the party doesn't have. But oh how they need him.
I don't think he would be successful, come 2020, but he would, analagously to T Blair's reaction to Michael Howard, provoke a "happy to get back to serious, grown-up politics" response at PMQs and beyond.
Morley & Outwood 2015 is probably one of the three most significant individual constituency results in the last 40 years, alongside Bristol East 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.
Didn't you have a role in the defenestration or emasculation of Ed B?
Very minor. I spent much more time in Wakefield than M&O.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Nearly all these members are going to be nutters, Trots, SWPers, Stop the War hipsters with Tourettes, mad people, really mad people, Islamists, Respect members, Holocaust deniers, homeless Marxists, antisemites, TUSC members, 17 year olds, econazis, and cats.
This is the new Labour party. The surge in members is not a boon for Labour, its a catastrophe. Your party is about to swing wildly to the far left, after badly losing an election because it was too leftwing already.
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Entry Here...
Naught but Primrose Hill (borders) Blairite Propaganda!
"Good afternoon, Comrades. In less than an hour, Left-wing activists from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest political battle in the history of mankind. "Mankind." That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the 12th of September, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom... Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution... but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the 12th of September will no longer be known as a Labour Party holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: "We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!"
'I know what you are thinking. ''Did he nationalise six banks or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this marxist excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is £44bn+ of People's QE, the most incompetent economic policy in the world and would blow your financial security clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel witless?" Well, do ya, voter? '
22% is an important bulwark in a sea of Tory propaganda and gerrymandering, a very strong base for recovery.Labour needs to get its act together and fire its guns at the Tory enemy not each other in the manner of Debbie Abrahams' attack on IDS.
BuzzFeed News understands that an extra 85,000 people are now able to vote for Labour’s mayoral nomination, compared to before the general election. On 7 May, only 40,000 were eligible to vote – that number is now believed to be 125,000
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
BuzzFeed News understands that an extra 85,000 people are now able to vote for Labour’s mayoral nomination, compared to before the general election. On 7 May, only 40,000 were eligible to vote – that number is now believed to be 125,000
Indeed so. Basically in line with the national percentages. Though turnout may not be as high for the Mayoral candidate - it might depend on the exact mechanic of voting online.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Nearly all these members are going to be nutters, Trots, SWPers, Stop the War hipsters with Tourettes, mad people, really mad people, Islamists, Respect members, Holocaust deniers, homeless Marxists, antisemites, TUSC members, 17 year olds, econazis, and cats.
This is the new Labour party. The surge in members is not a boon for Labour, its a catastrophe. Your party is about to swing wildly to the far left, after badly losing an election because it was too leftwing already.
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Entry Here...
Yes, but I'm not sure why those types (artistic hyperbole excepted) should be banned. Those seem to be people that do share Labour's values. UKIP or Conservative supporters I think there's a big case for slinging out; Green party I don't see it. I don't think they are sabotaging the election for their own political gain, I think it's more trying to influence the course of the election to get someone who shares their values, and whom they could support, which seems to be the whole idea behind it to me.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
Very intriguing that Labour are noting the distinction between pre-May members and new joiners. Looks like that [probably in combination with leaked breakdown of results] will be used to delegitimise Corbyn as and when.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
Did you believe the 45 minutes?
It is wholly irrelevant what I or IDS for that matter believed. It would have been a "belief". As in "I believe in fairies".
Tony Blair said he had intelligence. Explain to me how the LotO could have gainsaid that.
BTW, interesting that ComRes have again shown a pretty big Tory lead. They're the one pollster who has shown quite consistent big Tory leads, so it'll be interesting to see how this compares to other pollsters, once they start polling a bit more often.
Diane Abbott is on TV whenever Corbyn needs a media spokesman so you'd think she might get a decent number of first preferences from Corbyn supporters.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
Not saying they should be slung out at all. Let them in. It's democracy. I'm just saying they will destroy Labour's election chances, which they will.
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Nearly all these members are going to be nutters, Trots, SWPers, Stop the War hipsters with Tourettes, mad people, really mad people, Islamists, Respect members, Holocaust deniers, homeless Marxists, antisemites, TUSC members, 17 year olds, econazis, and cats.
This is the new Labour party. The surge in members is not a boon for Labour, its a catastrophe. Your party is about to swing wildly to the far left, after badly losing an election because it was too leftwing already.
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Entry Here...
Yes, but I'm not sure why those types (artistic hyperbole excepted) should be banned. Those seem to be people that do share Labour's values. UKIP or Conservative supporters I think there's a big case for slinging out; Green party I don't see it. I don't think they are sabotaging the election for their own political gain, I think it's more trying to influence the course of the election to get someone who shares their values, and whom they could support, which seems to be the whole idea behind it to me.
Not saying they should be slung out at all. Let them in. It's democracy. I'm just saying they will destroy Labour's election chances, which they will.
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
BTW, interesting that ComRes have again shown a pretty big Tory lead. They're the one pollster who has shown quite consistent big Tory leads, so it'll be interesting to see how this compares to other pollsters, once they start polling a bit more often.
They've made the biggest post-GE adjustment so far, with a new Voter Turnout Model.
BTW, interesting that ComRes have again shown a pretty big Tory lead. They're the one pollster who has shown quite consistent big Tory leads, so it'll be interesting to see how this compares to other pollsters, once they start polling a bit more often.
They've made the biggest post-GE adjustment so far, with a new Voter Turnout Model.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
Yes, it is rather gullible of the opposition leader to assume the Prime Minister is an honest man. In fact I'd say not making that assumption should be a prerequisite for getting the job.
Former cabinet members and current Privy Councillors said the threat was exaggerated or non-existent. Robin Cook, who had received the same daily security reports as Blair, stated that Iraq "probably has no WMDs". When IDS was asked about this, he lamely replied "Well, I think he's wrong", without saying why.
Looking at the previous thread, one of the most interesting notions I saw was that the Tories were adopting a 'One Nation Conservatism'. IMHO it's more of a conservatism for old and middle class people than for everyone. After all, Scots, many Northerners, ethnic minorities, those on low incomes, and women under 45 don't appear to think the Tories are governing in their interests. Incidentally, this also questions the idea the Tories are that much of an inclusive group too, given that significant demographics of people don't appear think the Tories are a good option for them. I'd wager though that British politics in general isn't really that inclusive.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
It was Iain Duncan Smith.
IDS should still have asked to see the evidence. As a privy councillor and shadow PM, at the very least, he could have had a confidential briefing from the senior MI6 bods. His taking not just Blair's word but also his interpretation was a serious failing.
BTW, interesting that ComRes have again shown a pretty big Tory lead. They're the one pollster who has shown quite consistent big Tory leads, so it'll be interesting to see how this compares to other pollsters, once they start polling a bit more often.
They've made the biggest post-GE adjustment so far, with a new Voter Turnout Model.
Yeah, although I did hear ICM made a few changes, but ComRes' is the most dramatic. Though I'm unaware if the British Polling Council has managed to find out why they got VI so wrong in May. If I were a pollster I'd wait until they've made a conclusion.
IDS should still have asked to see the evidence. As a privy councillor and shadow PM, at the very least, he could have had a confidential briefing from the senior MI6 bods. His taking not just Blair's word but also his interpretation was a serious failing.
Benefit of hindsight there. At the time, it was unthinkable, absolutely unthinkable, that a British PM would deliberately try to mislead on a matter of this gravity. And whilst IDS was no doubt over-ready to believe Blair, he was certainly not the only one, and there were some well-informed supporting voices, such as the Institute of Strategic Studies. Also, I doubt if MI6 would have contradicted Blair and Campbell - their arms were being heavily twisted.
We know better now, of course. 13 years of New Labour mean we won't take anything on trust again.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
It was Iain Duncan Smith.
Yup.
'As a mark of respect for the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, the announcement of Duncan Smith's victory in the leadership contest was delayed until 13 September 2001. In November 2001, he was one of the first politicians to call for an invasion of Iraq and held talks in Washington, DC, with senior US officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz.'
Not saying they should be slung out at all. Let them in. It's democracy. I'm just saying they will destroy Labour's election chances, which they will.
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
IDS should still have asked to see the evidence. As a privy councillor and shadow PM, at the very least, he could have had a confidential briefing from the senior MI6 bods. His taking not just Blair's word but also his interpretation was a serious failing.
Benefit of hindsight there. At the time, it was unthinkable, absolutely unthinkable, that a British PM would deliberately try to mislead on a matter of this gravity.
No it wasn't. A huge number of people at the time thought exactly that.
Not saying they should be slung out at all. Let them in. It's democracy. I'm just saying they will destroy Labour's election chances, which they will.
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
600,000 new members, eh?
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
Blair had the advantage, of course, that the main opposition party took the same view on the war that he did (or if anything, were even more belligerent). Michael Howard's gullibility basically made it impossible for Iraq to cost Labour the election.
Yep what a gullible old sausage that Michael Howard, eh? The Prime Minister tells him that he has access to intelligence which states that there is a credible threat to the UK and the Leader of the Opposition has only gone and believed him.
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
Yes, it is rather gullible of the opposition leader to assume the Prime Minister is an honest man. In fact I'd say not making that assumption should be a prerequisite for getting the job.
Former cabinet members and current Privy Councillors said the threat was exaggerated or non-existent. Robin Cook, who had received the same daily security reports as Blair, stated that Iraq "probably has no WMDs". When IDS was asked about this, he lamely replied "Well, I think he's wrong", without saying why.
This is not difficult politics for the LotO:
PM telling the truth, LotO agrees: good PM lying, LotO agrees: good PM lying, LotO disagrees: good PM telling the truth, LotO disagrees: catastrophic
No it wasn't. A huge number of people at the time thought exactly that.
Citation needed. I'm sure you can find plenty of leftie Cobynistas who on all issues opposed whatever the US was proposing, but amongst sane people the opposition was more based on interpretation or wondering about the consequences than of thinking Blair was deliberately misleading us.
BTW, interesting that ComRes have again shown a pretty big Tory lead. They're the one pollster who has shown quite consistent big Tory leads, so it'll be interesting to see how this compares to other pollsters, once they start polling a bit more often.
They've made the biggest post-GE adjustment so far, with a new Voter Turnout Model.
Yeah, although I did hear ICM made a few changes, but ComRes' is the most dramatic. Though I'm unaware if the British Polling Council has managed to find out why they got VI so wrong in May. If I were a pollster I'd wait until they've made a conclusion.
From Labour's perspective, these fine changes could be very difficult. Labour was motivated in the last parliament because the polls showed them that not only could they win, it was increasingly impossible for the Conservatives to win.
If Miliband dribbled on 28 to 32 percent for the entire of the Parliament they would have ran a different campaign, and a genuine chance that he would have been replaced.
Even if we see a genuine improvement in Labour's position its going to still look very poor.
Not saying they should be slung out at all. Let them in. It's democracy. I'm just saying they will destroy Labour's election chances, which they will.
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
He will be annihilated by the rightwing media. There's 30 years of his backstory to dig over.
I've seen that pic before. Best part is "KEEB OUR WAY...". Idiots.
Yes, it's been doing the rounds on Twitter for a week, but new to me.
It's just incredible. Corbyn's not so much got skeletons in his closet as an entire mortuary in his back yard. The Fred West of the British Left.
That banner is pure Tooting Popular Front.
"Comrades, it is my sad duty to announce the expulsion of the Amalgamated Union of Sign-makers. I mean, three hundred notes they stung us for - and they put KEEB on it... We'll be a bloody laughing stock at the Miners' Gala...."
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
He will be annihilated by the rightwing media. There's 30 years of his backstory to dig over.
That's like the Clue typo game changing one letter in proverbs to change the meaning.
"Look before you leak." "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we diet." "Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder." "The road to Hull is paved with good intentions." "The course of true Gove never did run smooth."
No it wasn't. A huge number of people at the time thought exactly that.
Citation needed. I'm sure you can find plenty of leftie Cobynistas who on all issues opposed whatever the US was proposing, but amongst sane people the opposition was more based on interpretation or wondering about the consequences than of thinking Blair was deliberately misleading us.
Well, I attended three of the big anti-war rallies in London that year (2003).
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Nearly all these members are going to be nutters, Trots, SWPers, Stop the War hipsters with Tourettes, mad people, really mad people, Islamists, Respect members, Holocaust deniers, homeless Marxists, antisemites, TUSC members, 17 year olds, econazis, and cats.
This is the new Labour party. The surge in members is not a boon for Labour, its a catastrophe. Your party is about to swing wildly to the far left, after badly losing an election because it was too leftwing already.
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Entry Here...
And, they're the most sane. You'll also get rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists
Not saying they should be slung out at all. Let them in. It's democracy. I'm just saying they will destroy Labour's election chances, which they will.
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
Not saying they should be slung out at all. Let them in. It's democracy. I'm just saying they will destroy Labour's election chances, which they will.
I've also just noticed this on Twitter (though it's been around a while) -
Corbyn standing in front of a poster of Stalin and Mao at a Mayday rally. That's him on the far left (he's more identifiable if its enlarged). Imagine a Tory leader in front of a poster of Hitler and Franco.
No it wasn't. A huge number of people at the time thought exactly that.
Citation needed. I'm sure you can find plenty of leftie Cobynistas who on all issues opposed whatever the US was proposing, but amongst sane people the opposition was more based on interpretation or wondering about the consequences than of thinking Blair was deliberately misleading us.
Funny how the insane keep being proved right all the time.
BTW, interesting that ComRes have again shown a pretty big Tory lead. They're the one pollster who has shown quite consistent big Tory leads, so it'll be interesting to see how this compares to other pollsters, once they start polling a bit more often.
They've made the biggest post-GE adjustment so far, with a new Voter Turnout Model.
Yeah, although I did hear ICM made a few changes, but ComRes' is the most dramatic. Though I'm unaware if the British Polling Council has managed to find out why they got VI so wrong in May. If I were a pollster I'd wait until they've made a conclusion.
From Labour's perspective, these fine changes could be very difficult. Labour was motivated in the last parliament because the polls showed them that not only could they win, it was increasingly impossible for the Conservatives to win.
If Miliband dribbled on 28 to 32 percent for the entire of the Parliament they would have ran a different campaign, and a genuine chance that he would have been replaced.
Even if we see a genuine improvement in Labour's position its going to still look very poor.
I agree that Labour's position will look bad either way; but tbh I don't think MPs will be taking much notice of public polls. They'll either be doing their own private polling (I think the Blairite gang in Labour will do this) or waiting to see how Corbyn does in real elections in Spring, as Ed MIliband's mediocre performances there proved far more indicative than polls.
The headline on that politics.co.uk article is pretty unfair. He didn't say the time isn't right for a female leader. He just said that neither of the women in the contest would be "the right candidate"; i.e. Cooper and Kendall are even crapper than he is. How's that sexist?
WRONG
Asked whether it would be "great" to have a woman leader, Burnham replied: "When the time is right, when the right leader comes along".
The headline is totally fair.
It's out of context. He's saying the time isn't right because neither of the only possible candidates are any good. The headline clearly implies that he thinks there's something innately wrong with having a woman leader.
He should have chosen his words more carefully.
This was an obvious question that was going to be put to him at some time and he should have had a form of words worked out. He didn't.
Why wasn't there a woman in the Lib Dem leadership election?
NO women MP's IIRC
There is a motion at the Lib Dem conference to make the Deputy Leader open to any member to stand and vote. I think it highly likely that this will go through and that there will be a female deputy leader. Possibilities are Jo Swinson, Lynne Featherstone, and Kirsty Williams.
Labour didn't lose the last GE because they were too left-wing. They lost it because most couldn't take Ed Miliband seriously, and his message was an incoherent mess.
Just like Corbyn's biggest issue isn't that he's too left-wing; it's association with certain types of groups such as the IRA which will be the death knell of his leadership.
Details of the "purge" via the Guardian: Of those initially excluded for not being genuine supporters (and sent to a panel for review) - this doesn't include those refused for not being on the electoral register:
Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members. Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Nearly all these members are going to be nutters, Trots, SWPers, Stop the War hipsters with Tourettes, mad people, really mad people, Islamists, Respect members, Holocaust deniers, homeless Marxists, antisemites, TUSC members, 17 year olds, econazis, and cats.
This is the new Labour party. The surge in members is not a boon for Labour, its a catastrophe. Your party is about to swing wildly to the far left, after badly losing an election because it was too leftwing already.
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Entry Here...
And, they're the most sane. You'll also get rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists
Very good!
I think this leadership contest has set a new standard in interactive political entertainment.
Comments
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/multiple-casualties-after-st-andrews-chemical-leak-1-3868384
"I resign."
Followed a few days later by:
"Now I've unresigned"
UKIP should be thanked for providing us with the first belly laugh of what's been a brilliant post-election time for politics watchers.
SEEast 1983 and Enfield Southgate 1997.Total ruled ineligible – 3,138 (of which RS [registered supporters] 1,972, AS [affiliated supporters] 748 and Members 418).
Those deemed eligible – 144 (some decisions still pending).
More than half of those so far excluded are Green party members.
Approximately, of those found to be ineligible, 400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party.
Seems reasonable, even though the occasional anomaly will slip through - cerainly unlikely to provide a basis for a legal challenge to the outcome.
The fact that *full* membership has gone up by 60% since May is more interesting. For better or worse, CLPs will change significantly if lots of these people get involved. Labour membership is now roughly three times the size of Tory membership, though the election showed the limits of just chucking human waves of leaflets and volunteers.
Hertford & Stevenage 1979 was quite important.
About 150,000 fewer than attended the Stop the War march in 2003.
Before Tony Blair was returned as PM two years later.
A JUST SOCIETY
AN OPEN DEMOCRACY
A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
All sounds quite reasonable
Should Hattie bar herself from the Labour party on the democracy point, though ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/harvey-proctor-former-mp-accuses-police-of-homosexual-witch-hunt-after-murder-probe-10471050.html
A HEALTHY ECONOMY
AN OPEN SOCIETY
A JUST DEMOCRACY
A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT
Missing: Apple Pie.
Yvette Burnham
Andy Corbyn
Liz Cooper
All this assumes that Balls could have seen off Corbyn, which he may not have done, but he'd have given him a better run for his money (assuming Cooper stood aside for him, which she may not have done).
Rival mayoral campaign admits Sadiq Khan most likely to win Labour nomination http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/rival-mayoral-campaign-admits-sadiq-khan-most-likely-to-win
#KeepcalmandbackZac
They have been talked about before - but now it matters rather more.
Though having said that, his arrogant nature and preening attitude probably count against him as much if not more.
BuzzFeed News understands that an extra 85,000 people are now able to vote for Labour’s mayoral nomination, compared to before the general election. On 7 May, only 40,000 were eligible to vote – that number is now believed to be 125,000
Because of course to have taken a stand on the assumption that the Prime Minister was lying over a matter of national security is something the Leader of the Opposition hardly thinks twice about.
Corbyn: Yah-Boo Sucks Politics
This man used to read the Beano!
Yes, but I'm not sure why those types (artistic hyperbole excepted) should be banned. Those seem to be people that do share Labour's values. UKIP or Conservative supporters I think there's a big case for slinging out; Green party I don't see it. I don't think they are sabotaging the election for their own political gain, I think it's more trying to influence the course of the election to get someone who shares their values, and whom they could support, which seems to be the whole idea behind it to me.
Burnham's an idiot.
Strange.
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/entrism-small-part-jeremy-corbyns-rise/5050
Tony Blair said he had intelligence. Explain to me how the LotO could have gainsaid that.
(Edited to correct egregious LotO error)
I've seen that pic before. Best part is "KEEB OUR WAY...". Idiots.
You have to laugh....
http://comres.co.uk/statement-comres-voter-turnout-model/
Former cabinet members and current Privy Councillors said the threat was exaggerated or non-existent. Robin Cook, who had received the same daily security reports as Blair, stated that Iraq "probably has no WMDs". When IDS was asked about this, he lamely replied "Well, I think he's wrong", without saying why.
Looking at the previous thread, one of the most interesting notions I saw was that the Tories were adopting a 'One Nation Conservatism'. IMHO it's more of a conservatism for old and middle class people than for everyone. After all, Scots, many Northerners, ethnic minorities, those on low incomes, and women under 45 don't appear to think the Tories are governing in their interests. Incidentally, this also questions the idea the Tories are that much of an inclusive group too, given that significant demographics of people don't appear think the Tories are a good option for them. I'd wager though that British politics in general isn't really that inclusive.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=keebs
I kid you not – prophetic or what…?
That is going to be a problem for all labour MPs, isn;t it? when Jez leads they will have to go into bat for him or look elsewhere.
Adam Smith; Freidrich Hayek; General Franco; Adolf Hitler; ....
But who gets Mao's spot !?
We know better now, of course. 13 years of New Labour mean we won't take anything on trust again.
Everyone knows that KEEB stands for
Keeping
Equality and
Egalitarianism
British
'As a mark of respect for the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, the announcement of Duncan Smith's victory in the leadership contest was delayed until 13 September 2001. In November 2001, he was one of the first politicians to call for an invasion of Iraq and held talks in Washington, DC, with senior US officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz.'
http://tinyurl.com/oq5n2s5
Al Baghdadi (IS leader) to join this list soon ?
PM telling the truth, LotO agrees: good
PM lying, LotO agrees: good
PM lying, LotO disagrees: good
PM telling the truth, LotO disagrees: catastrophic
If Miliband dribbled on 28 to 32 percent for the entire of the Parliament they would have ran a different campaign, and a genuine chance that he would have been replaced.
Even if we see a genuine improvement in Labour's position its going to still look very poor.
"Comrades, it is my sad duty to announce the expulsion of the Amalgamated Union of Sign-makers. I mean, three hundred notes they stung us for - and they put KEEB on it... We'll be a bloody laughing stock at the Miners' Gala...."
"Look before you leak."
"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we diet."
"Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder."
"The road to Hull is paved with good intentions."
"The course of true Gove never did run smooth."
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/635721019202895872/photo/1
Not Safe For Socialists
A better five would be:
Marinetti, Plenge, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco.
Burnham 18%
Cooper 22%
Kendall 25%
Corbyn 32%
Just like Corbyn's biggest issue isn't that he's too left-wing; it's association with certain types of groups such as the IRA which will be the death knell of his leadership.
I think this leadership contest has set a new standard in interactive political entertainment.