On topic - the Labour party since May has presented a pretty deplorable demeanour of bitter bad losers - blaming everyone but themselves and then turning on each other in aself-indulgent orgy of of lefty political puritanism which has demeaned them in the eyes of most rational onlookers.
A number of people not least one of them prominent on here have joined in with the most pathetic of self-justifications I have ever seen. the country does need a credible opposition but they are not about to get it from the Labour party.
There is nothing credible about any party at the moment except the conservatives. All of them bleat on about 'austerity' but do not offer an alternative to how you are able to cut spending without er... cutting spending. A credible opposition would offer a credible economic policy. None of them have one. It would offer credible policies full stop. None of them do. Being credible is not the same as shouting loudly in protest like Violet Elizabeth Bott.
"Surely a public footpath is a public footpath, billionaire or not, provided you did not trespass on his property as he flew into it you would have been perfectly entitled to continue on"
Indeed but I felt in order to try out your theory I'd probably better be armed which I wasn't. I also suspected at the time he was probably Russian and who know what rules they abide by.
Yes, unless you had some gendarmes with you perhaps best to wait until he had gone past though Abromavich seemed quite pleasant and humble on his recent visit to the west coast of Scotland, cycling with a bodyguard and not drawing too much attention to himself once he had gone on shore from his yacht
"Surely a public footpath is a public footpath, billionaire or not, provided you did not trespass on his property as he flew into it you would have been perfectly entitled to continue on"
Indeed but I felt in order to try out your theory I'd probably better be armed which I wasn't. I also suspected at the time he was probably Russian and who know what rules they abide by.
You will find the same thing in this country but they will probably only be filming Midsommer Murder.
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
Speaking as a loyalist, I agree - if we had to choose again in due course, I'd go for someone who'd done their best to be loyally supportive in a tricky moment.
Incidentally, the fact that the focus group thought highly of Tony Blair suggests that they aren't necessarily representative, as polling suggests that's now an unusual view.
'Speaking as a loyalist' lol.
Personally I would rather speak as someone who would not vote for or serve alongside a raving lunatic.
The Lords is the world's only Upper House bigger than its respective Lower House!
120% before yesterday's shenanigans, now 127% larger than the Commons!
That it is larger or smaller speaks nothing as to its effectiveness at its purpose, or lack thereof. It could be 1600 or 20 members if it does the job right.
1600 sounds like featherbedding, 20 sounds like hard work unless you keep all the clerics then they can call on divine assistance
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
She should think of the long game and aim to be queen over the water. Some short term heat is less damaging than looking unprincipled.
Her line should be "while I respect that Jeremy is sincere in his beliefs, I disagree with too many of his policy preferences to be able to serve in his shadow Cabinet with integrity. I remain a loyal Labour supporter and will continue to argue for pragmatic progressive policies constructively."
Might joining JC's gang prejudice future leadership ambitions?
Daniel Hannan MEP: Cameron’s peerages are helping to discredit the Lords
Cameron has done what any rational person would have done in his situation. But of course it's great fun to have a go so that is what lots of people do.
It may well be valid, but it is so expected that it'd be more fun to praise the ones people think are worthy appointments, be they political or not.
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
She should think of the long game and aim to be queen over the water. Some short term heat is less damaging than looking unprincipled.
Her line should be "while I respect that Jeremy is sincere in his beliefs, I disagree with too many of his policy preferences to be able to serve in his shadow Cabinet with integrity. I remain a loyal Labour supporter and will continue to argue for pragmatic progressive policies constructively."
Might joining JC's gang prejudice future leadership ambitions?
She managed to be a part of Ed M's gang for five years and yet be almost invisible, she might well manage it again. It's frustrating, as I don't get an incompetent vibe from her that, fairly or not, I now get from Burnham. I get the sense there is something there with Cooper, some sense she could handle important matters, but though I'm sure she's perfectly warm and pleasant in person, her lack of charisma on screen is almost frightening.
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
Speaking as a loyalist, I agree - if we had to choose again in due course, I'd go for someone who'd done their best to be loyally supportive in a tricky moment.
Incidentally, the fact that the focus group thought highly of Tony Blair suggests that they aren't necessarily representative, as polling suggests that's now an unusual view.
'Speaking as a loyalist' lol.
I don't think he means loyalist as in royalist. I think he means that, politically, he always does what he's told.
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
She should think of the long game and aim to be queen over the water. Some short term heat is less damaging than looking unprincipled.
Her line should be "while I respect that Jeremy is sincere in his beliefs, I disagree with too many of his policy preferences to be able to serve in his shadow Cabinet with integrity. I remain a loyal Labour supporter and will continue to argue for pragmatic progressive policies constructively."
Might joining JC's gang prejudice future leadership ambitions?
She managed to be a part of Ed M's gang for five years and yet be almost invisible, she might well manage it again. It's frustrating, as I don't get an incompetent vibe from her that, fairly or not, I now get from Burnham. I get the sense there is something there with Cooper, some sense she could handle important matters, but though I'm sure she's perfectly warm and pleasant in person, her lack of charisma on screen is almost frightening.
A pleasant night to all.
She should politely decline. 14s as Lab leader at next GE looks good (although I already have a side punt on Jarvis). That's assuming I have been wrong for weeks and she is not Lab leader on 12th September.
The Lancaster and Fleetwood MP is giving every impression of being an absolute thicko.
It didn't strike me as an impression.
It's a long time since I have shouted at the telly (I must be losing some of my brio in middle age) but Smith was truly, truly dreadful. If she is Corbyn's vanguard then Labour are in a worse state than even PB betting folk think.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
I suspect Corbyn would appoint a young team, amongst which he would hope to find a successor. If he were to leave early, his parting gift will be to position left leaning leaders of the next generation ready to continue.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
I suspect Corbyn would appoint a young team, amongst which he would hope to find a successor. If he were to leave early, his parting gift will be to position left leaning leaders of the next generation ready to continue.
Your assuming there will be a Labour Party to hand over to?
My guess is that voters will take a very dim view to the Labour Party taking them for fools... How bad Labour's defeat is in 2020 remains to be seen but what happened to Labour in Scotland in May should serve as a warning that no party has an absolute right to exist especially when they are taking the piss out of the voters...
I wonder whether this will be another country who's polling is embarrassingly underestimating the right of center party?
The key factor in Israel and the UK was the centre right party was tied with the centre left, or narrowly behind in Israel, and the centre right PM polled ahead of his rivals, Harper is now trailing Mulcair with Trudeau not far behind, and all the polls show the Tories well down on their 2011 total. The Tories may do a little better than the polls suggest but it looks like an NDP minority government
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
I suspect Corbyn would appoint a young team, amongst which he would hope to find a successor. If he were to leave early, his parting gift will be to position left leaning leaders of the next generation ready to continue.
Your assuming there will be a Labour Party to hand over to?
My guess is that voters will take a very dim view to the Labour Party taking them for fools... How bad Labour's defeat is in 2020 remains to be seen but what happened to Labour in Scotland in May should serve as a warning that no party has an absolute right to exist especially when they are taking the piss out of the voters...
Even were Corbyn to become leader and manage to stay until 2020 I cannot see Labour falling to third with the LDs a shadow of their former selves and Greens likely to move to Corbyn. UKIP may close the gap but will never be able to replace Labour as the main party of the centre left
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the fact that Germany had effectively adopted an open door immigration policy. And by extension that means an open door immigration policy for most of the European Union since once people are living in Germany they can pretty much move about freely within the EU area. They're expecting 800,000 migrants this year but it'll likely be more next year as word gets around that you probably won't be turned away once you reach the country.
Can the Schengen Area survive as a result of this development?
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
On the Lab leadership- the Radio 5 Hustings yesterday Burnham was by far the best, and Corbyn the worst- which is saying alot to be outperformed by Liz Kendell, but there you go. It kind of says to me that when Corbyn is leader his tenure will be short lived. Even his Corbynites might soon find out he's a bit dour and humourless and not great at thinking on his feet which the Radio 5 coverage showed.
'not great at thinking on his feet'
This is a man with 2 Es at A-level, no real world experience and a set of opinions handed down by his parents and careful maintained without any exposure to air or challenge ever since.
It's a miracle he can put his trousers on the right way round.
>it says in passing that Progress says 40% of the membership has yet to vote. How they know that (and indeed whether they're correct) and whether they really mean membership and not electorate I'm not sure, but perhaps the ERS is publishing a running total? I don't know many people who are still brooding.
The Greens cost Labour Broxtowe in 2010? They polled 423 votes and the Lab maj was 389 so that means about 92% of them would have had to have voted Labour if the Greens hadn't stood which seems a bit unlikely IMO.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the fact that Germany had effectively adopted an open door immigration policy. And by extension that means an open door immigration policy for most of the European Union since once people are living in Germany they can pretty much move about freely within the EU area. They're expecting 800,000 migrants this year but it'll likely be more next year as word gets around that you probably won't be turned away once you reach the country.
Can the Schengen Area survive as a result of this development?
I have to admit I rate Merkel very highly now. She is turning out to be one of Europe's greatest leaders. In the light of this human catastrophe the British response is pathetic !
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
Speaking as a loyalist, I agree - if we had to choose again in due course, I'd go for someone who'd done their best to be loyally supportive in a tricky moment.
Incidentally, the fact that the focus group thought highly of Tony Blair suggests that they aren't necessarily representative, as polling suggests that's now an unusual view.
Remember Blair is unpopular with leftwingers and the right, but these were centrist floating voters who had voted Labour under Blair but voted for Cameron in 2015 ie exactly the type of group where Blair would be most popular and exactly the type of voters Labour has to win back to win another general election
Are there really so many voters out there who want to support a war criminal?
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the fact that Germany had effectively adopted an open door immigration policy. And by extension that means an open door immigration policy for most of the European Union since once people are living in Germany they can pretty much move about freely within the EU area. They're expecting 800,000 migrants this year but it'll likely be more next year as word gets around that you probably won't be turned away once you reach the country.
Can the Schengen Area survive as a result of this development?
I have to admit I rate Merkel very highly now. She is turning out to be one of Europe's greatest leaders. In the light of this human catastrophe the British response is pathetic !
What is your proposed solution - it has to be a solution that a politician who might conceivably want to get re-elected would consider proposing to the public, otherwise it's just wishful thinking, or dare I say it, virtue signalling .
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
Speaking as a loyalist, I agree - if we had to choose again in due course, I'd go for someone who'd done their best to be loyally supportive in a tricky moment.
Incidentally, the fact that the focus group thought highly of Tony Blair suggests that they aren't necessarily representative, as polling suggests that's now an unusual view.
Remember Blair is unpopular with leftwingers and the right, but these were centrist floating voters who had voted Labour under Blair but voted for Cameron in 2015 ie exactly the type of group where Blair would be most popular and exactly the type of voters Labour has to win back to win another general election
Are there really so many voters out there who want to support a war criminal?
Most are not remotely politically engaged and probably neither know nor care about the details of what did and didn't happen in Iraq. In any case anyone with strong views of this sort almost certainly isn't a floating voter.
I think lack of solid second preference transfers between the others is going to doom whoever comes second. What I can't figure out is who that's going to be. Nearly all the non-Corbyn voters who I know have gone for Cooper (like most of those on PB), but Burnham is shown by multiple polls to be more popular both with Labour voters and the wider public, and he's close to the traditional choice of members as "inside left". As my circle is mainly Guardianista, I wonder if there's a bigger Burnham vote out there that I'm not seeing.
If Burnham comes second then he'll probably get his choice of Shadow roles. If Cooper comes second - especially if it's close - it'll be an important test for both Corbyn and Cooper whether she joins the Shadow Cabinet or not.
She surely doesn't have a meaningful choice. To turn down an offer when Burnham accepts one would be to openly declare herself the queen-over-the-water, which won't go down well with party loyalists.
Speaking as a loyalist, I agree - if we had to choose again in due course, I'd go for someone who'd done their best to be loyally supportive in a tricky moment.
Incidentally, the fact that the focus group thought highly of Tony Blair suggests that they aren't necessarily representative, as polling suggests that's now an unusual view.
Remember Blair is unpopular with leftwingers and the right, but these were centrist floating voters who had voted Labour under Blair but voted for Cameron in 2015 ie exactly the type of group where Blair would be most popular and exactly the type of voters Labour has to win back to win another general election
Are there really so many voters out there who want to support a war criminal?
Has there been a conviction everyone else has missed? Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the fact that Germany had effectively adopted an open door immigration policy. And by extension that means an open door immigration policy for most of the European Union since once people are living in Germany they can pretty much move about freely within the EU area. They're expecting 800,000 migrants this year but it'll likely be more next year as word gets around that you probably won't be turned away once you reach the country.
Can the Schengen Area survive as a result of this development?
I have to admit I rate Merkel very highly now. She is turning out to be one of Europe's greatest leaders. In the light of this human catastrophe the British response is pathetic !
What is your proposed solution - it has to be a solution that a politician who might conceivably want to get re-elected would consider proposing to the public, otherwise it's just wishful thinking, or dare I say it, virtue signalling .
Agreed. Merkel' s approach will simply encourage more trafficking and will lead to many more deaths both directly and in future terrorist acts. Not all migrants are refugees. Most are probably not.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the fact that Germany had effectively adopted an open door immigration policy. And by extension that means an open door immigration policy for most of the European Union since once people are living in Germany they can pretty much move about freely within the EU area. They're expecting 800,000 migrants this year but it'll likely be more next year as word gets around that you probably won't be turned away once you reach the country.
Can the Schengen Area survive as a result of this development?
I have to admit I rate Merkel very highly now. She is turning out to be one of Europe's greatest leaders. In the light of this human catastrophe the British response is pathetic !
What is your proposed solution - it has to be a solution that a politician who might conceivably want to get re-elected would consider proposing to the public, otherwise it's just wishful thinking, or dare I say it, virtue signalling .
Agreed. Merkel' s approach will simply encourage more trafficking and will lead to many more deaths both directly and in future terrorist acts. Not all migrants are refugees. Most are probably not.
Even amongst those claiming asylum around 90% are rejected as being economic migrants. That fact that we deport less than 5% of those rejected is a disgrace, and wholly unfair on immigrants that go to the trouble of making a lawful visa application.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
I remain consistently confused by NickP's blase assumption that all that matters is that Labour tries to portray itself as a "broad church" and that there is little chance of much internal division and splits. Labour voters aren't going to care if there are supposedly a few "centrists" on board, they're going to run a mile from the lunatics in charge. And is he even reading how Corbyn says he is going to conduct his policy making? Does he just think he's lying?
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
I remain consistently confused by NickP's blase assumption that all that matters is that Labour tries to portray itself as a "broad church" and that there is little chance of much internal division and splits. Labour voters aren't going to care if there are supposedly a few "centrists" on board, they're going to run a mile from the lunatics in charge. And is he even reading how Corbyn says he is going to conduct his policy making? Does he just think he's lying?
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
I remain consistently confused by NickP's blase assumption that all that matters is that Labour tries to portray itself as a "broad church" and that there is little chance of much internal division and splits. Labour voters aren't going to care if there are supposedly a few "centrists" on board, they're going to run a mile from the lunatics in charge. And is he even reading how Corbyn says he is going to conduct his policy making? Does he just think he's lying?
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
Palmer supports whoever wins. End of.
This is hardly unusual.
Invariably party loyalists will support a new leader and this situation is hardly confined to Labour.
Conservatives and LibDems have at different times heaped huge praise on Hague, IDS, Howard and Ming when any reasoned analysis would indicate they'd lost before the cheers rang out from their acceptance speech.
And then behold down the line we here all along these very same loyalists knew all along the ever so recently feted leader was in fact a total dud.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
I remain consistently confused by NickP's blase assumption that all that matters is that Labour tries to portray itself as a "broad church" and that there is little chance of much internal division and splits. Labour voters aren't going to care if there are supposedly a few "centrists" on board, they're going to run a mile from the lunatics in charge. And is he even reading how Corbyn says he is going to conduct his policy making? Does he just think he's lying?
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
Palmer supports whoever wins. End of.
This is hardly unusual.
Invariably party loyalists will support a new leader and this situation is hardly confined to Labour.
Conservatives and LibDems have at different times heaped huge praise on Hague, IDS, Howard and Ming when any reasoned analysis would indicate they'd lost before the cheers rang out from their acceptance speech.
And then behold down the line we here all along these very same loyalists knew all along the ever so recently feted leader was in fact a total dud.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out on it though. Especially when we're in the middle of the electoral process. The sanctimony on here from some about exMPs is silly.
Its only Unionists talking about a second IndyRef:
THE SNP MSP Christian Allard has declared that a second referendum is “inevitable” and is calling on party members to campaign for another independence vote.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
blockquote>
Palmer supports whoever wins. End of.
This is hardly unusual.
Invariably party loyalists will support a new leader and this situation is hardly confined to Labour.
Conservatives and LibDems have at different times heaped huge praise on Hague, IDS, Howard and Ming when any reasoned analysis would indicate they'd lost before the cheers rang out from their acceptance speech.
And then behold down the line we here all along these very same loyalists knew all along the ever so recently feted leader was in fact a total dud.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out on it though. Especially when we're in the middle of the electoral process. The sanctimony on here from some about exMPs is silly.
JackW replied :
One mans "sanctimony" is another's pragmatism.
Nevertheless I have this premonition that future musings from the faithful will feature those spine chilling words for the soon to be doomed Dear Leader - " Sadly the time has come ...."
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
In any situation, it makes sense to decide (a) whether your current party represents the best chance of achieving what you'd like and (b) how you can maximise how closely it comes to your personal beliefs without damaging it without repair.
If you're a long-standing Labour member and you think the answer to (a) is yes but you disagree with part of Corbyn's agenda (almost no members disagree with all of it, though they may have severe doubts about electability), then it probably makes sense to work as constructively as you can within the party, rather than oblige those who want to see a furious civil war. Whether you think that's best done within the Shadow Cabinet is a judgment call, but I think most members would like to see critics of Corbyn giving it a go, and would be more likely to support them later if they did. If it doesn't work out, fair enough.
One of Corbyn's strengths is that he doesn't demand fanatical personal adherence to his beliefs - where he thinks something but most members think something else, as with leaving Nato, he says that it's his view but there isn't much support for it, so it won't happen. That gives a reasonable basis for e.g. Cooper to work with him - "Sure, we have differences, and we'll discuss them in a collegial way and reach decisions that may involve compromises, but in the end we have more in common than divides us". Your more apocalyptic view is shared by Southam here, but is probably untypical of the membership in general.
Obviously, if the answer to (a) is no, then you join someone else. It's not obvious, though, that there is a viable alternative. If we had PR, I suspect the situation would be very different.
Do not listen to the doubting words of the unreconstructed Liberal Democrat Smithson! Labour is the party of the state, not of liberal or democratic ideas!
Comrade Corbyn, when chairman, will usher in a new age of common sense. Aided by his overseas friends Hamas and Hezbollah with sensible, Sharia-compliant proposals to segregate gender and seize private property from the capitalist pigdogs, all will be well.
Its only Unionists talking about a second IndyRef:
THE SNP MSP Christian Allard has declared that a second referendum is “inevitable” and is calling on party members to campaign for another independence vote.
And they'll keep having referendums until they crawl over the line with 50.1% - and enter the Guiness Book of Records as the Most Politically Divided Country In The World.
I remain consistently confused by NickP's blase assumption that all that matters is that Labour tries to portray itself as a "broad church" and that there is little chance of much internal division and splits. Labour voters aren't going to care if there are supposedly a few "centrists" on board, they're going to run a mile from the lunatics in charge. And is he even reading how Corbyn says he is going to conduct his policy making? Does he just think he's lying?
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
Palmer supports whoever wins. End of.
This is hardly unusual.
Invariably party loyalists will support a new leader and this situation is hardly confined to Labour.
Conservatives and LibDems have at different times heaped huge praise on Hague, IDS, Howard and Ming when any reasoned analysis would indicate they'd lost before the cheers rang out from their acceptance speech.
And then behold down the line we here all along these very same loyalists knew all along the ever so recently feted leader was in fact a total dud.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out on it though. Especially when we're in the middle of the electoral process. The sanctimony on here from some about exMPs is silly.
Oh, I'm under no illusions about NickP's personal stance. He blindly supports who is thinks is going to win, and will blindly support whoever does win, although he'll probably contest that perception! What I struggle with is his opinion that everyone else will do the same. When to do so would either undermine a large part of what they've ever fought for a large part of their political lives. And potentially destroy any hopes they might have had for the future.
There is a lot of talk that many in Labour oppose Corbyn because he is "unelectable". I suspect that many oppose him because they think his policies will be disastrous not just for Labour but for the country. And that if he is allowed to go into an election proposing them then they would rather he lost. So they may feel they can't take the chance of "waiting to see" how he does at various elections, and whether he can manage to turn himself into a vote winner.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
Its only Unionists talking about a second IndyRef:
THE SNP MSP Christian Allard has declared that a second referendum is “inevitable” and is calling on party members to campaign for another independence vote.
I know you're a tory. Fair enough. But do you not feel even a little worried about the probability that there isn't going to be an effective opposition for the next five years?
You are joking , sitting in her tax haven , coining it in as she quaffs champagne and puts another waif up the chimney, no chance.
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
In any situation, it makes sense to decide (a) whether your current party represents the best chance of achieving what you'd like and (b) how you can maximise how closely it comes to your personal beliefs without damaging it without repair.
If you're a long-standing Labour member and you think the answer to (a) is yes but you disagree with part of Corbyn's agenda (almost no members disagree with all of it, though they may have severe doubts about electability), then it probably makes sense to work as constructively as you can within the party, rather than oblige those who want to see a furious civil war. Whether you think that's best done within the Shadow Cabinet is a judgment call, but I think most members would like to see critics of Corbyn giving it a go, and would be more likely to support them later if they did. If it doesn't work out, fair enough.
One of Corbyn's strengths is that he doesn't demand fanatical personal adherence to his beliefs - where he thinks something but most members think something else, as with leaving Nato, he says that it's his view but there isn't much support for it, so it won't happen. That gives a reasonable basis for e.g. Cooper to work with him - "Sure, we have differences, and we'll discuss them in a collegial way and reach decisions that may involve compromises, but in the end we have more in common than divides us". Your more apocalyptic view is shared by Southam here, but is probably untypical of the membership in general.
Obviously, if the answer to (a) is no, then you join someone else. It's not obvious, though, that there is a viable alternative. If we had PR, I suspect the situation would be very different.
If you thought that the answer to (a) two months ago was yes, and the answer to (a) now is no, and there is no obvious alternative, and the change has been caused mainly by a surge of people who have not joined Labour because they are loyal to Labour, but because they want Corbyn, then being loyal and hoping the tide will turn isn't likely to do much good.
It shows the gulf between motivating party members and motivating the (voting) public, which is why I think it's wrong for people to overly criticise Burnham and Cooper for failing to inspire during the campaign. Both would have been fine as party leader and a step up from Miliband.
You set a very low bar, both are complete donkeys and neither could run a bath.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
He says he will pass responsibility for policy making to "the membership" and expect MPs to follow the membership line.
Labour MP Cat Smith totally clueless on Newsnight.
But forthright. No big tents here.
"when the Christian Socialist Movement consulted and voted (by 67%, which I contest is not “huge” or “almost unanimous” as I read from some tweets) to change its name from “Christian Socialist Movement” to the wishy-washy “Christians on the Left” I will concede that is democracy and good luck to them. Although, I still don’t really know what “on the left” means; on the left of Thatcher or on the left of the SWP?" ... "So, no hard feelings as I cancel my membership to the Christian Socialist Movement as they move into the indefinable political category of “on the left”. CSM wasn’t ever one of the biggest socialist societies in the Labour Party, not because of the word Socialist, probably more because there aren’t that many Christians in the Labour Party. I hope they don’t ditch that word from their name too."
The Lancaster and Fleetwood MP is giving every impression of being an absolute thicko.
It didn't strike me as an impression.
It's a long time since I have shouted at the telly (I must be losing some of my brio in middle age) but Smith was truly, truly dreadful. If she is Corbyn's vanguard then Labour are in a worse state than even PB betting folk think.
Labour now has some spectacularly awful MPs in its ranks. Gawd help us if they ever get power.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
I know you're a tory. Fair enough. But do you not feel even a little worried about the probability that there isn't going to be an effective opposition for the next five years?
Actually, yes - its a very bad idea - bad for the country - every government needs a good opposition to keep it on its toes - and bad for Labour - which I thought had left this nonsense behind in the eighties. Thatcher was lucky in her enemies, looks like Cameron is going to be too.
Just waiting for Cameron to take his man purse to the European Commission.
On EasyJet?
Wonder how close to Brussels you can get on EasyJet. Probably somewhere in France, while still advertised as Brussels!
Rob, you are thinking of Ryanair , Easyjet are not the same.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
'Jeremy Corbyn was the least preferred contender. He was described by one as "bitter and jealous of the rich people" and by another as "unelectable as prime minister". Yvette Cooper came out on top, and was described as "positive" and "addressing the needs of the working class people". The focus group participants described Andy Burnham as "quite credible". On Liz Kendall, they said she needs more "passion" and "personality". Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was still highly regarded among participants.'
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
I would have thought the majority would ease quietly on to the back benches, not make any particular waves and buy themselves a large bag of popcorn. There isn't much mileage in making a big fuss and looking disloyal, but then again it might be advisable not to be on the bridge when the ship hits the iceberg.
A caucus of the moderate can then spend their now plentiful leisure time trying to decide on an electable policy platform, and putting out feelers for a charismatic leader to front it, whilst taking a principled stand on votes - if their votes are in accordance with solid sensible leftwing principles I think their colleagues will easily forgive them for abstaining (with deep regret) on the more batshit crazy motions.
The Lords is the world's only Upper House bigger than its respective Lower House!
120% before yesterday's shenanigans, now 127% larger than the Commons!
That it is larger or smaller speaks nothing as to its effectiveness at its purpose, or lack thereof. It could be 1600 or 20 members if it does the job right.
Comrade kle4
The global average (ie. nations with bicameral parliaments) is having an Upper House only 44% the size of the Lower House.
Doesn't mean it couldn't work even though it's larger! The UK breaks the mould!
full of troughers , comic singers and useless dullards though so your hopes are dashed
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
The Lancaster and Fleetwood MP is giving every impression of being an absolute thicko.
It didn't strike me as an impression.
It's a long time since I have shouted at the telly (I must be losing some of my brio in middle age) but Smith was truly, truly dreadful. If she is Corbyn's vanguard then Labour are in a worse state than even PB betting folk think.
Labour now has some spectacularly awful MPs in its ranks. Gawd help us if they ever get power.
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
Delusional. The Greens didn't lose Labour anything , Labour lost because it had a catastrophically bad leader in 2010 who had ruined the economy.. It lost in 2015 because its policies were rubbish and it had another weird leader. in 2020 history will repeat itself in Broxtowe and nationally.
If votes leaked to the Greens, its Labour's fault, no one else's.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
'Jeremy Corbyn was the least preferred contender. He was described by one as "bitter and jealous of the rich people" and by another as "unelectable as prime minister". Yvette Cooper came out on top, and was described as "positive" and "addressing the needs of the working class people". The focus group participants described Andy Burnham as "quite credible". On Liz Kendall, they said she needs more "passion" and "personality". Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was still highly regarded among participants.'
But has she defined and does she know what are, "the needs of working class people". Also are "working class" those with only 'blue collar' jobs or all people who have to work for their living?
Most people want income security and have enough money to house, feed and clothe their family and some spare cash for extras and holidays. A lot of people are not ambitious, beyond being able to live comfortably - of course there will be many different interpretations of that expression.
Cooper still lives mentally in the 80s and 90s and does not seem to realise (from her privileged position) that the economic future for most of us is quite uncertain.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
'Jeremy Corbyn was the least preferred contender. He was described by one as "bitter and jealous of the rich people" and by another as "unelectable as prime minister". Yvette Cooper came out on top, and was described as "positive" and "addressing the needs of the working class people". The focus group participants described Andy Burnham as "quite credible". On Liz Kendall, they said she needs more "passion" and "personality". Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was still highly regarded among participants.'
But has she defined and does she know what are, "the needs of working class people". Also are "working class" those with only 'blue collar' jobs or all people who have to work for their living?
Most people want income security and have enough money to house, feed and clothe their family and some spare cash for extras and holidays. A lot of people are not ambitious, beyond being able to live comfortably - of course there will be many different interpretations of that expression.
Cooper still lives mentally in the 80s and 90s and does not seem to realise (from her privileged position) that the economic future for most of us is quite uncertain.
That is a big issue as most of these politicians have never had a real job, they go straight from their ppe's onto expenses and so have never had to worry about a bill, it just goes on expenses and the salary goes into the bank. They are not very bright and out of touch with real life.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
@JackW - do you mean Principle? I put an age limit on the HoL because it needs to have people of wide experience which is so lacking in most of the HoC and especially as its main function is as a revising chamber. Experience can give one the knowledge of what works and what does not as long as it is applied to the context of the present day and the future. For all the study of history, most people learn by experience.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
@JackW - do you mean Principle? I put an age limit on the HoL because it needs to have people of wide experience which is so lacking in most of the HoC and especially as its main function is as a revising chamber. Experience can give one the knowledge of what works and what does not as long as it is applied to the context of the present day and the future. For all the study of history, most people learn by experience.
How about the experience of being young in the contemporary world?
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
2 things 1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn? 2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere. Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
Plenty of enthusiasts for Corbyn in Broxtowe (he was nominated by the CLP and membership has nearly doubled), where the Greens lost us the election in 2010 and accounted for half the margin in 2015. But I think Labour voters will want to see centrists on board as well - the party nominated Creasy as deputy, who isn't especially left-wing.
I think the idea that the Greens are simply Labour-in-tents is optimistic. They may be much closer to Corbyn than most parts of Labour but that's only because Corbyn's further from the mainstream.
As for the 2010 result, I find it curious that Nick blames the Greens' 423 votes for his defeat by 389, when the BNP - which usually takes more votes from Labour than Tory areas - scored 1422 (never mind the Lib Dems' near-9000. Of course, those Lib Dems weren't Yellow Labour either: when their vote collapsed the three-quarters in 2015, it wasn't Nick that benefitted (Labour's share dropped by 1.1%), it was the Greens, Tories and UKIP. Now, there may well have been some churn there - Labour-Tory switching being partially offset by LD-Lab switching - but if so, that simply underlines where Labour's failure to take the seat came from.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
So just over half a million pounds per MSP......
Per member that is within spitting distance of the number for House of Commons.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
@JackW - do you mean Principle? I put an age limit on the HoL because it needs to have people of wide experience which is so lacking in most of the HoC and especially as its main function is as a revising chamber. Experience can give one the knowledge of what works and what does not as long as it is applied to the context of the present day and the future. For all the study of history, most people learn by experience.
What's wrong with letting the public choose who they want to represent them? Artificial bans on this group or that just lead to discrimination. It's bad enough for young people bearing the brunt of the cuts due to being overly fond of abstaining electorally. To codify that with a formal age limit would just make it worse.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
An Upper House elected on the same day, from the same electorate, but just under a different voting system will never stay subservient. They will always claim to have a stronger democratic mandate, regardless of any attempt to write "primacy" into the Constitution. What's more, it is easy to foresee a future Govt choosing to reverse that anyway - the main reason why FPTP remains popular within Labour is because they are still a beneficiary of it. They may however see a great advantage in having an upper house able to legitimately oppose, which may cause them some inconvenience in Government, but nothing like the problems it may cause the Tories.
I also suspect that it would be very difficult to elevate the Salisbury convention from a convention into something more. The number of loopholes would be enormous. That's even before you get to the question of what you do about minority or coalition governments, which either don't have a majority mandate or have contradictory mandates on the basis of their manifestos. And there will always be candidates standing for party election who publicly dissent from elements of their national manifesto.
Its only Unionists talking about a second IndyRef:
THE SNP MSP Christian Allard has declared that a second referendum is “inevitable” and is calling on party members to campaign for another independence vote.
The government should limit the amount of money spent on legal advice for politicians, officials and military figures as part of the Chilcot inquiry, a senior Conservative MP has said.
David Davis told the BBC "some people" were exploiting practices "to delay and dispute the outcome" of the inquiry.
He said it was right to protect people from injustice but "legal advice is only appropriate up to a point."
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Alex " Five pensions " Salmond and Sturgeon use helicopters and chauffeured limousines. Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains. Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
The global average (ie. nations with bicameral parliaments) is having an Upper House only 44% the size of the Lower House.
.
...
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
@JackW - do you mean Principle? I put an age limit on the HoL because it needs to have people of wide experience which is so lacking in most of the HoC and especially as its main function is as a revising chamber. Experience can give one the knowledge of what works and what does not as long as it is applied to the context of the present day and the future. For all the study of history, most people learn by experience.
How about the experience of being young in the contemporary world?
I do not think experience is the right word. Expertise .
But the HoL is a waste of space. There is no need for it. If we need one than irrespective of its powers or lack of them it should be elected. How we do that of course is where all the problems start. But fundamentally the HoL should be abolished. I have no problem with Constitutional Monarchs or proper 'Lords' as long as everyone pays their taxes and keeps their expensive Grade 1 listed home in order. I see no virtue in an appointed chamber, nor the granting of spurious Lords & Dames for simply being an actor or writer or scientist sportsman or some other philanthropist. But I believe we dole out far too many honours as it is.
It shows the gulf between motivating party members and motivating the (voting) public, which is why I think it's wrong for people to overly criticise Burnham and Cooper for failing to inspire during the campaign. Both would have been fine as party leader and a step up from Miliband.
You set a very low bar, both are complete donkeys and neither could run a bath.
Malcolm, surely that's a bit unfair? I've known some very reliable and sensible donkeys. True, they're not very good at running baths, but then they don't ever need to.
Once the enormo-haddock dominate the Commons, the Upper Chamber will be occupied by the octo-lemurs. Communicating by telepathy, there will be no need for protracted debates and efficiency greatly increased.
Meanwhile back in the real world.... Away from Corbynomics and Labour in general.
Surging exports and strong business investment pushed up UK growth in the second quarter, as official data confirmed the economy grew by 0.7pc in the three months to June..
Consumer spending rose by 0.7pc compared with the previous quarter, representing the 16th consecutive quarter of growth, while business investment grew by 2.9pc, which was much stronger than the 1.5pc expansion expected by analysts.
Exports, which dragged down growth in the first quarter, rose by 3.9pc in the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), while imports grew by 0.6pc. Net trade alone added one percentage point to growth in the second quarter, the ONS s
Comments
A credible opposition would offer a credible economic policy. None of them have one. It would offer credible policies full stop. None of them do. Being credible is not the same as shouting loudly in protest like Violet Elizabeth Bott.
Thanks. Very interesting
76 made it out of the tunnel before it was discovered, 3 made it home, and 50 of the recaptured 73 were shot on Hitler's orders.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/paul-royle-australian-pow-who-took-part-in-the-great-escape-dies-at-101/2015/08/28/9b22fd1e-4da1-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html
A pleasant night to all.
https://goo.gl/XruvJ4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015
QTWTAIYOC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11831096/Want-to-avoid-a-hangover-Dont-drink-too-much-scientists-conclude.html
Of Course, of course!
1. Anyone who knocked on doors for labour in croydon could have told you this, in fact anyone who has been to croydon could have told you this. Are voters that different in Broxtowe that they will vote for a party led by corbyn?
2. Corbyn is going to have to pay back his friends which almost certainly means a paid up nut job as shadow chancellor. If it's meacher or McDonnell no one with any judgement will want to be assocIated with the ensuing mess. And assuming it's the pre 2010 members who have to clean up the mess (again) none will judge cooper or anyone else for not taking part. Meanwhile the ship of fools will move on elsewhere.
Still hoping against hope it doesn't happen.
My guess is that voters will take a very dim view to the Labour Party taking them for fools... How bad Labour's defeat is in 2020 remains to be seen but what happened to Labour in Scotland in May should serve as a warning that no party has an absolute right to exist especially when they are taking the piss out of the voters...
Can the Schengen Area survive as a result of this development?
>http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/28/ed-miliband-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership
>it says in passing that Progress says 40% of the membership has yet to vote. How they know that (and indeed whether they're correct) and whether they really mean membership and not electorate I'm not sure, but perhaps the ERS is publishing a running total? I don't know many people who are still brooding.
Won't the candidates be canvassing by email?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCXbib9MahE
There are many, many people in the Labour Party (admittedly many in the older generation) who gave a significant part of their political lives fighting to protect Labour against virtually everything Corbyn stands for and is proposing. And for many of the younger generation these people are looked up to as their political heroes. They're not going to just lie down and let everything they fought for disappear in the space of a few months, surely? Or they're just going to give up and leave.
Invariably party loyalists will support a new leader and this situation is hardly confined to Labour.
Conservatives and LibDems have at different times heaped huge praise on Hague, IDS, Howard and Ming when any reasoned analysis would indicate they'd lost before the cheers rang out from their acceptance speech.
And then behold down the line we here all along these very same loyalists knew all along the ever so recently feted leader was in fact a total dud.
THE SNP MSP Christian Allard has declared that a second referendum is “inevitable” and is calling on party members to campaign for another independence vote.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-mp-christian-allard-second-indyref-inevitable-1-3871515
The average man in this country is 5'9' or so.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
If you're a long-standing Labour member and you think the answer to (a) is yes but you disagree with part of Corbyn's agenda (almost no members disagree with all of it, though they may have severe doubts about electability), then it probably makes sense to work as constructively as you can within the party, rather than oblige those who want to see a furious civil war. Whether you think that's best done within the Shadow Cabinet is a judgment call, but I think most members would like to see critics of Corbyn giving it a go, and would be more likely to support them later if they did. If it doesn't work out, fair enough.
One of Corbyn's strengths is that he doesn't demand fanatical personal adherence to his beliefs - where he thinks something but most members think something else, as with leaving Nato, he says that it's his view but there isn't much support for it, so it won't happen. That gives a reasonable basis for e.g. Cooper to work with him - "Sure, we have differences, and we'll discuss them in a collegial way and reach decisions that may involve compromises, but in the end we have more in common than divides us". Your more apocalyptic view is shared by Southam here, but is probably untypical of the membership in general.
Obviously, if the answer to (a) is no, then you join someone else. It's not obvious, though, that there is a viable alternative. If we had PR, I suspect the situation would be very different.
Do not listen to the doubting words of the unreconstructed Liberal Democrat Smithson! Labour is the party of the state, not of liberal or democratic ideas!
Comrade Corbyn, when chairman, will usher in a new age of common sense. Aided by his overseas friends Hamas and Hezbollah with sensible, Sharia-compliant proposals to segregate gender and seize private property from the capitalist pigdogs, all will be well.
There is a lot of talk that many in Labour oppose Corbyn because he is "unelectable". I suspect that many oppose him because they think his policies will be disastrous not just for Labour but for the country. And that if he is allowed to go into an election proposing them then they would rather he lost. So they may feel they can't take the chance of "waiting to see" how he does at various elections, and whether he can manage to turn himself into a vote winner.
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
@JournoStephen: The Once-in-a-Generation Game #SNPTV
followed by
@AyrshireBog: #SNPTV 9pm film: Four Referendums Then a Funeral.
"when the Christian Socialist Movement consulted and voted (by 67%, which I contest is not “huge” or “almost unanimous” as I read from some tweets) to change its name from “Christian Socialist Movement” to the wishy-washy “Christians on the Left” I will concede that is democracy and good luck to them. Although, I still don’t really know what “on the left” means; on the left of Thatcher or on the left of the SWP?"
...
"So, no hard feelings as I cancel my membership to the Christian Socialist Movement as they move into the indefinable political category of “on the left”. CSM wasn’t ever one of the biggest socialist societies in the Labour Party, not because of the word Socialist, probably more because there aren’t that many Christians in the Labour Party. I hope they don’t ditch that word from their name too."
http://labourlist.org/2013/08/call-a-spade-a-spade-and-a-socialist-a-socialist/
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
A caucus of the moderate can then spend their now plentiful leisure time trying to decide on an electable policy platform, and putting out feelers for a charismatic leader to front it, whilst taking a principled stand on votes - if their votes are in accordance with solid sensible leftwing principles I think their colleagues will easily forgive them for abstaining (with deep regret) on the more batshit crazy motions.
Is Corbyn the radical leader of the North?
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
If votes leaked to the Greens, its Labour's fault, no one else's.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million
parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million
MSP salaries of £11.1 million
Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their
parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million.
funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
Members Allowances: £20m
Per member toto: 95m/800 = £118k all in
Very cost-effective.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2015/HouseofLords-Annual-Report-201415.pdf
As for the 2010 result, I find it curious that Nick blames the Greens' 423 votes for his defeat by 389, when the BNP - which usually takes more votes from Labour than Tory areas - scored 1422 (never mind the Lib Dems' near-9000. Of course, those Lib Dems weren't Yellow Labour either: when their vote collapsed the three-quarters in 2015, it wasn't Nick that benefitted (Labour's share dropped by 1.1%), it was the Greens, Tories and UKIP. Now, there may well have been some churn there - Labour-Tory switching being partially offset by LD-Lab switching - but if so, that simply underlines where Labour's failure to take the seat came from.
I also suspect that it would be very difficult to elevate the Salisbury convention from a convention into something more. The number of loopholes would be enormous. That's even before you get to the question of what you do about minority or coalition governments, which either don't have a majority mandate or have contradictory mandates on the basis of their manifestos. And there will always be candidates standing for party election who publicly dissent from elements of their national manifesto.
You can judge older people on their actions over years not just their words and promises. A more reliable guide to their integrity.
Out politics suffers for this.
David Davis told the BBC "some people" were exploiting practices "to delay and dispute the outcome" of the inquiry.
He said it was right to protect people from injustice but "legal advice is only appropriate up to a point."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34093974
As legal aid is usually limited, he may have a very good point.
Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains.
Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
But the HoL is a waste of space. There is no need for it. If we need one than irrespective of its powers or lack of them it should be elected. How we do that of course is where all the problems start.
But fundamentally the HoL should be abolished. I have no problem with Constitutional Monarchs or proper 'Lords' as long as everyone pays their taxes and keeps their expensive Grade 1 listed home in order. I see no virtue in an appointed chamber, nor the granting of spurious Lords & Dames for simply being an actor or writer or scientist sportsman or some other philanthropist. But I believe we dole out far too many honours as it is.
Burnham and Cooper, on the other hand...
Surging exports and strong business investment pushed up UK growth in the second quarter, as official data confirmed the economy grew by 0.7pc in the three months to June..
Consumer spending rose by 0.7pc compared with the previous quarter, representing the 16th consecutive quarter of growth, while business investment grew by 2.9pc, which was much stronger than the 1.5pc expansion expected by analysts.
Exports, which dragged down growth in the first quarter, rose by 3.9pc in the period, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), while imports grew by 0.6pc. Net trade alone added one percentage point to growth in the second quarter, the ONS s
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11830065/Rising-exports-and-consumer-spending-boost-UK-growth.html