TSE - suggestion for a future thread. Unite and their role in backing the last 3 Labour Leaders. 2 of whom lost their GEs.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know which unions backed Tony Blair? I know Prescott was the sort of unofficial left candidate, but given the margin of his victory I'm assuming Blair had at least some union backing.
It's a fair question: why is the Labour Party so institutionally misogynistic?
Or is it just down to their activists?
The Right tend to condescend to women, acting all surprised if a woman utters a fully formed sentence all by herself ("Aren't you clever!"). The Left tend to be in favour of feminism if it means they can get more sex without any of that commitment nonsense. But once they've had it, the women are there just to make the tea.
Still, revenge is a dish best eaten cold.
I wouldn't say Labour is mysogynistic, but I have noticed a tendency for women who oppose "progressive" causes to be on the receiving end of unpleasant sexualised abuse.
The SNP's angle on Corbyn is interesting. You would have thought as true progressives, they'd be championing Corbyn to potentially bring real anti austerity to the whole of the UK and be delighted that Labour had listened to their criticisms from four months ago and finally returned to its old Labour roots to break free from the Westminster establishment.
It's almost as if everything the SNP apparently stood for is a load of hot air...
Insofar as pols' statements, let alone anonymous postings on obscure forums, cannot be described as hot air, what would else would you want Sturgeon to say over and above that 'she hoped to work with Mr Corbyn in a "progressive alliance against Tory austerity"'?
Perhaps Sturgeon should really break the political mould and advise Scots to go back to voting for SLab. If only she'd done that in May, we'd now be looking at an...err...Tory majority.
It would be interesting to know how the Labour leader result would have played out as the others dropped out. I think the pundits need to reflect upon the convincing nature of Corbyn's victory, which came in the face of relentless ABC messaging from the MSM, party grandees etc. I think the unexpectedly early Corbyn attacks from Cameron & co are evidence that they can sense danger.
It's a fair point that everyone thought he'd flop and he didn't, although that everyone includes Corbyn - so why should he be sure that he will succeed with the wider electorate now? Still, he should go forward with confidence - I don't think it'll work, but he's in place with a great mandate, no time for half measures, it would look inauthentic from him, so he should go big.
DT - I wonder why as one of his loyalist supporters, she hasn't got a gig - maybe one will pop up later today
'Corbyn will not take us out of Nato or EU'
Corbyn-supporter Diane Abbott MP has just revealed that she has not been asked to join his shadow cabinet and that she is "very happy" on the backbenches.
She told BBC Radio 4: "Let me just correct one thing. Jeremy did not win because of an influx of people paying £3. He won emphatically upon Labour party members. It is an important point. He has a massive mandate from the entire membership.
"I have not been asked [to join the shadow cabinet] and unlike some people I’m not turning jobs down that they haven’t been offered.
To cut a long story short, Labour should be "Friends of Israel" - that's it !
The nastiness of the Corbyn supporter mentality has been revealed clearly since he got elected. First we had one calling Kendall a "witch" and now we have one saying that anyone having an issue with coddling up to Islamist anti-semites has to be an Israeli lackey. And then we have several supporters defending Hamas and Hezbollah, two vicious militant groups.
It is clear just how rotten the Labour Party is in its heart. The Blairite domination among the parliamentary party was merely a facade covering the intolerance and extremism beneath. Now it has been removed the full ugliness of what lies beneath is revealed.
Oh, well said, JEO. Many labour supporters and members are nothing but closet fascists. And now they have elected their Fuhrer.
To cut a long story short, Labour should be "Friends of Israel" - that's it !
The nastiness of the Corbyn supporter mentality has been revealed clearly since he got elected. First we had one calling Kendall a "witch" and now we have one saying that anyone having an issue with coddling up to Islamist anti-semites has to be an Israeli lackey. And then we have several supporters defending Hamas and Hezbollah, two vicious militant groups.
It is clear just how rotten the Labour Party is in its heart. The Blairite domination among the parliamentary party was merely a facade covering the intolerance and extremism beneath. Now it has been removed the full ugliness of what lies beneath is revealed.
Well said. The last few months have exposed the British Left for what they are. And what they are is nasty and intolerant, under the cloak of inclusiveness and tolerance.
DT - I wonder why as one of his loyalist supporters, she hasn't got a gig - maybe one will pop up later today
'Corbyn will not take us out of Nato or EU'
Corbyn-supporter Diane Abbott MP has just revealed that she has not been asked to join his shadow cabinet and that she is "very happy" on the backbenches.
She told BBC Radio 4: "Let me just correct one thing. Jeremy did not win because of an influx of people paying £3. He won emphatically upon Labour party members. It is an important point. He has a massive mandate from the entire membership.
"I have not been asked [to join the shadow cabinet] and unlike some people I’m not turning jobs down that they haven’t been offered.
Interesting that he can manage without her - I thought he would want her at the top table (because whatever her faults, she has a high profile and is pretty experienced, which is something you can't say of many on the left). Does that suggest that the Burnham supporters, including Burnham himself, are going to come aboard?
What is clickbait? It be interesting to see how the pbCOM great and good would treat a prolific lefty female poster. Oh- I remember Snowflake now, and she got terrible treatment.
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
Corbyn in my view is a low risk low reward candidate, as a divisive and polarizing figure according to the polls, he's popular in London, Scotland and the North and unpopular in the South and the Midlands. But there are not many marginals in areas where Corbyn is at a disadvantage or at an advantage, just 10 left in unpopular areas, using the popularity figures Corbyn would lose 7 marginals in the Midlands and the South, while gaining 4 in London, Scotland and the North.
All this talk of Corbyn leading Labour to less than 60 seats or to victory in the next GE is pretty much old man babble, things have changed, the Midlands is as Tory as the South and it won't budge and the cities are and will be red as a communist flag as long as quality of life continues it's 40 year now decline, so they won't budge either.
You want proof? Here you go, the map of the average constituency winner between 1955-74 and the one from 2015:
All cities in England and Wales are now Labour Redoubts, while all rural areas are of the deepest Tory blue. The country lives in 2 separate worlds geographically and demographically diametrically opposed to each other with completely different views and values, one rural, one urban, one before 1970, one after 1970. And that won't change for another generation at least.
"I must say I do find it amusing - in a grim way - that Nick Palmer, having spent any number of threads, telling us - in the teeth of all the evidence - that Corbyn's "friends", "associations" whatever just showed his openness to speaking to all sorts of people, to try and find common ground, to lay the ground work for peace etc,"
By the same token should we consider the Prime Minister an irredeemable dilettante from his Bullingdon days? A time incidentally when Corbyn was demonstrating against the evils of apartheid.
Really? Cameron is like many I meet in the City and I have no particular love for them, frankly, to put it mildly.
But I think your moral compass needs a bit of tuning if you think that, say, trashing a restaurant as a student (appalling as that is) is as bad as an MP inviting to Parliament on two occasions terrorist leaders a few days after their organisations have killed people in London and the government.
One of Cameron's best moments as Prime Minister was the unreserved and gracious and much needed apology he made for Bloody Sunday. Corbyn can't even bring himself to condemn the IRA which is and was for many years an outfit which killed, tortured and disappeared people, some of them Catholics, ran criminal protection rackets and threatened anyone who tried to stand up to it and gloried in what it was doing.
It is also worth noting that whilst Corbyn was waving placards, Fatcha was quietly but effectively getting on with the job of ensuring Mandela's release and apartheid's dismantling....
She is credited with being one of the main levers for ending apartheid and release of Mandela. Not that she is ever given credit for anything of course.
Which comes right back to the simple basic fact. To change things you need to achieve government and power rather than be a protest party full of placard waving, cricket pitch digging activists. You need to look like and act like a credible and alternative government to do so. Blairs looked like that hence the landslides plus he occupied if not dominated the central area of politics for years.
While we're on the subject......What's Corby's view on the present situation in South Africa or come to that in Zimbabwe no longer the "basket of Africa" but the basket case.
Corbyn in my view is a low risk low reward candidate, as a divisive and polarizing figure according to the polls, he's popular in London, Scotland and the North and unpopular in the South and the Midlands. But there are not many marginals in areas where Corbyn is at a disadvantage or at an advantage, just 10 left in unpopular areas, using the popularity figures Corbyn would lose 7 marginals in the Midlands and the South, while gaining 4 in London, Scotland and the North.
All this talk of Corbyn leading Labour to less than 60 seats or to victory in the next GE is pretty much old man babble, things have changed, the Midlands is as Tory as the South and it won't budge and the cities are and will be red as a communist flag as long as quality of life continues it's 40 year now decline, so they won't budge either.
You want proof? Here you go, the map of the average constituency winner between 1955-74 and the one from 2015:
All cities in England and Wales are now Labour Redoubts, while all rural areas are of the deepest Tory blue. The country lives in 2 separate worlds geographically and demographically diametrically opposed to each other with completely different views and values, one rural, one urban, one before 1970, one after 1970. And that won't change for another generation at least.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Corbyn's agenda would play well in North Wales, Birmingham, Stoke on Trent, Nottingham or parts of Manchester. I wouldn't bet against some of the leafier areas of West Yorkshire, e.g. Wakefield, coming into play either.
There are quite a few marginals to be lost there (or seats that should not be marginal, but could become so). As for Scotland, that's gone and it isn't coming back (remember, the Tories used to top the popular vote there regularly from the 1920s to the 1960s - that feels a VERY long time ago)!
You are of course right to say that as matters stand, Corbyn would be unlikely to as low a result as some of the more hysterical people have considered due to his strength in London, Merseyside and the North East. But certainly 180 is not an unreasonable expectation at the moment, unless a new and truly devastating scandal emerges OR Labour change their leader.
The SNP's angle on Corbyn is interesting. You would have thought as true progressives, they'd be championing Corbyn to potentially bring real anti austerity to the whole of the UK and be delighted that Labour had listened to their criticisms from four months ago and finally returned to its old Labour roots to break free from the Westminster establishment.
It's almost as if everything the SNP apparently stood for is a load of hot air...
Insofar as pols' statements, let alone anonymous postings on obscure forums, cannot be described as hot air, what would else would you want Sturgeon to say over and above that 'she hoped to work with Mr Corbyn in a "progressive alliance against Tory austerity"'?
Perhaps Sturgeon should really break the political mould and advise Scots to go back to voting for SLab. If only she'd done that in May, we'd now be looking at an...err...Tory majority.
It's an interesting show, watching the 3 SNP posters having 3 different views about Labour under Corbyn: One is shouting the same verbal abuse as fanatical Tories (so probably an SNP from the highlands), the other is showering Corbyn with praise like a hard lefty (so probably an SNP from the cities), and the third one is following the party line.
It will be nice to watch how the dynamics of the group develop over time.
Labour are not piling up votes in their safe seats. I suspect most of the biggest parliamentary majorities are still Tory ones. Ed may have boosted the decaying core vote a little though. Presumably the most marginal Tory seats are ones which likely have had an incumbency bonus - Broxtowe being a good example. A place where there previously rumoured to be a fair few red Tories.
Corbyn in my view is a low risk low reward candidate, as a divisive and polarizing figure according to the polls, he's popular in London, Scotland and the North and unpopular in the South and the Midlands. But there are not many marginals in areas where Corbyn is at a disadvantage or at an advantage, just 10 left in unpopular areas, using the popularity figures Corbyn would lose 7 marginals in the Midlands and the South, while gaining 4 in London, Scotland and the North.
All this talk of Corbyn leading Labour to less than 60 seats or to victory in the next GE is pretty much old man babble, things have changed, the Midlands is as Tory as the South and it won't budge and the cities are and will be red as a communist flag as long as quality of life continues it's 40 year now decline, so they won't budge either.
You want proof? Here you go, the map of the average constituency winner between 1955-74 and the one from 2015:
All cities in England and Wales are now Labour Redoubts, while all rural areas are of the deepest Tory blue. The country lives in 2 separate worlds geographically and demographically diametrically opposed to each other with completely different views and values, one rural, one urban, one before 1970, one after 1970. And that won't change for another generation at least.
There's another type of seat, though, comprising smaller cities, or big towns. Plymouth, Reading, Swindon, Milton Keynes, Bournemouth, Harlow, Worcester, Redditch, etc. which Labour are writing off.
Labour are not piling up votes in their safe seats. I suspect most of the biggest parliamentary majorities are still Tory ones. Ed may have boosted the decaying core vote a little though. Presumably the most marginal Tory seats are ones which likely have had an incumbency bonus - Broxtowe being a good example. A place where there previously rumoured to be a fair few red Tories.
Yet the truth can’t be concealed. This leaves Labour MPs more divided than I have ever known them. Divided between those who are convinced that the Corbyn leadership will be an instant disaster and those who reckon it will be more of a slow-burning catastrophe for their party. Then there are those who candidly confess that they have no idea where their party is now going. “I think I know how this will end,” says one. “But I can’t say when.”
and oh dear Andy
I expect Mr Corbyn will get the co-operation of sufficient Labour MPs to populate his frontbench. Even so, this is going to be – I put it lightly – a very strained marriage. That is exemplified by the hideously compromised position of Andy Burnham. He has indicated a willingness to serve in the shadow cabinet, but has since been caught saying privately that this is “a disaster for the Labour party... the public will think Labour has given up on ever being a government again”.
Corbyn in my view is a low risk low reward candidate, as a divisive and polarizing figure according to the polls, he's popular in London, Scotland and the North and unpopular in the South and the Midlands. But there are not many marginals in areas where Corbyn is at a disadvantage or at an advantage, just 10 left in unpopular areas, using the popularity figures Corbyn would lose 7 marginals in the Midlands and the South, while gaining 4 in London, Scotland and the North.
All this talk of Corbyn leading Labour to less than 60 seats or to victory in the next GE is pretty much old man babble, things have changed, the Midlands is as Tory as the South and it won't budge and the cities are and will be red as a communist flag as long as quality of life continues it's 40 year now decline, so they won't budge either.
You want proof? Here you go, the map of the average constituency winner between 1955-74 and the one from 2015:
All cities in England and Wales are now Labour Redoubts, while all rural areas are of the deepest Tory blue. The country lives in 2 separate worlds geographically and demographically diametrically opposed to each other with completely different views and values, one rural, one urban, one before 1970, one after 1970. And that won't change for another generation at least.
There's another type of seat, though, comprising smaller cities, or big towns. Plymouth, Reading, Swindon, Milton Keynes, Bournemouth, Harlow, Worcester, Redditch, etc. which Labour are writing off.
Nope, those already not Tory safe seats (Swindon), behave like inner cities and for a reason, Harlow for instance has the third largest share of social housing in the country. There is preciously little left for Labour to lose in the South outside of London.
Labour are not piling up votes in their safe seats. I suspect most of the biggest parliamentary majorities are still Tory ones. Ed may have boosted the decaying core vote a little though. Presumably the most marginal Tory seats are ones which likely have had an incumbency bonus - Broxtowe being a good example. A place where there previously rumoured to be a fair few red Tories.
The list is here: the largest ones are actually Labour, but it looks pretty even for the first 20-30.
According to this one though, although it isn't easy to understand, Labour have around a hundred seats with an absolute majority (that is, more than 50% of the vote) including Liverpool Walton where Labour had a remarkable 81% of the vote. So those hundred or so should be pretty safe barring some genuine catastrophe.
All this talk about Blairism being finished is just wrong. It would be like saying that the left was extinct after Dianne Abbot's poor showing in 2010.
Liz Kendell was a poor candidate. She had no name recognition, and once people saw her they didn't find her credible. So, like Dianne Abbot, she polled poorly, not for ideological reasons, but for being a bit crap.
Blairism for Labour simply means selecting a candidate who can appeal outside Labour's comfort zone. Corbyn is worth a throw of the dice because he could potentially attract a different type of voter to Labour. I doubt it, but we will not know anything until next May.
After Corbyn, Labour will select a candidate who has wider appeal- combining both credibility and leadership. They are more likely to be found on the right fringe- Chuka, David Miliband and Dan Jarvis. The leading two Brownites- Burnham and Cooper were found wanting.
I don't know. But if you want to get a message to them, probably best to paint it in foot-high letters on a placard, and wave it in front of their faces.
Corbyn ducks out of the Andrew Marr Show - easily the softest show on all of TV for Labourites, as well as announcing that he intends asking OTHERS' questions at PMQs .... does the new LOTO really have any backbone?
All this talk about Blairism being finished is just wrong. It would be like saying that the left was extinct after Dianne Abbot's poor showing in 2010.
Liz Kendell was a poor candidate. She had no name recognition, and once people saw her they didn't find her credible. So, like Dianne Abbot, she polled poorly, not for ideological reasons, but for being a bit crap.
Blairism for Labour simply means selecting a candidate who can appeal outside Labour's comfort zone. Corbyn is worth a throw of the dice because he could potentially attract a different type of voter to Labour. I doubt it, but we will not know anything until next May.
After Corbyn, Labour will select a candidate who has wider appeal- combining both credibility and leadership. They are more likely to be found on the right fringe- Chuka, David Miliband and Dan Jarvis. The leading two Brownites- Burnham and Cooper were found wanting.
That seems a pretty shrewd analysis, but I can't see either of the first two returning to the leadership fray. Chuka will have ruined his chances with his 'will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance' moment and Miliband is just seen as a bit of a loser (moreover, he's not even in politics any more). Jarvis might be worth a punt, but what about Keir Starmer? Do you think he might be in the mix?
Corbyn ducks out of the Andrew Marr Show - easily the softest show on all of TV for Labourites, as well as announcing that he intends asking OTHERS' questions at PMQs .... does the new LOTO really have any backbone?
Not that kind of backbone, but his bully boys will purge the party of anyone who isn't on message, that's a given..
I am beginning to think that defections are more likely than I previously thought.
'Rather Corbyn will be to many voters refreshingly direct with a political stance which might be boiled down to “immigration good, spending good, welfare good; war bad”.'
I'd agree with that. People will like the honesty of the man even if they have no intention of voting for him.
It was a mistake for the tories to hit the airwaves yesterday. Priti Patel was a disaster. They need to be very careful how they handle this.
I wrote on this site some weeks ago about Tom Watson being the one to watch. I predict this 'thug in a suit' will be the next leader of the Labour - completely unopposed, because Labour will not have the stomach for another long leadership campaign. His body language on stage yesterday was quite telling.
What does it say about VCooper and ABurnham that they never got 'within a shout' of JCorbyn. Labour really are bereft of talent at the moment.
Corbyn ducks out of the Andrew Marr Show - easily the softest show on all of TV for Labourites, as well as announcing that he intends asking OTHERS' questions at PMQs .... does the new LOTO really have any backbone?
The SNP's angle on Corbyn is interesting. You would have thought as true progressives, they'd be championing Corbyn to potentially bring real anti austerity to the whole of the UK and be delighted that Labour had listened to their criticisms from four months ago and finally returned to its old Labour roots to break free from the Westminster establishment.
It's almost as if everything the SNP apparently stood for is a load of hot air...
Insofar as pols' statements, let alone anonymous postings on obscure forums, cannot be described as hot air, what would else would you want Sturgeon to say over and above that 'she hoped to work with Mr Corbyn in a "progressive alliance against Tory austerity"'?
Perhaps Sturgeon should really break the political mould and advise Scots to go back to voting for SLab. If only she'd done that in May, we'd now be looking at an...err...Tory majority.
It's an interesting show, watching the 3 SNP posters having 3 different views about Labour under Corbyn: One is shouting the same verbal abuse as fanatical Tories (so probably an SNP from the highlands), the other is showering Corbyn with praise like a hard lefty (so probably an SNP from the cities), and the third one is following the party line.
It will be nice to watch how the dynamics of the group develop over time.
Before Corbyn can have any hope of taking the fight to the SNP he has to first sort out the somewhat messy SLAB stables. At the moment we have Glasgow "Dinosaur" SLAB who have just resurrected Frank McAveety as the council leader, then theres Kezia leading fantasy Edinburgh SLAB in TwitterBlogLand and finally we have Corbyn's man on the ground Neil Findlay leading Corbyn SLAB which is based in his garage. If Corbyn wanted to shake things up a bit in Scotland appointing Findlay as SoS for Scotland would be an inspired move, with Murray as his deputy.
I don't know. But if you want to get a message to them, probably best to paint it in foot-high letters on a placard, and wave it in front of their faces.
Literally the same people who said the country would warm to Brown, and that Ed and his "big ideas" were winning over voters, are telling us that Corbyn is just great and won't be the voter repellent we expect. It's only worth listening to them for the amusement value.
PB Tories can probably pick a better Labour leader and shadow cabinet than any group the Labour Party would come up with.
DT - oh and he's joined the Privy Council afterall
Labour sources have told The Guardian that Jeremy Corbyn may not make any announcements for his shadow cabinet today after all – but they haven't ruled it out.
14.06 Odds slashed on Corbyn remaining until 2020
Bookmakers William Hill have cut their odds of 7/4 that Jeremy Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election to 6/4 after support for him to do so, including one bet of £227 from a Cambridgeshire punter. They offer 1/2 that he will not.
William Hill have lengthened their odds for Labour to win an overall majority at the next election from 7/2 to 9/2.The Conservatives have been cut from 6/5 to Even money to win again by an overall majority, with a Hung Parliament offered at 11/8. Hills make the Tories 4/11 to be the largest party at the next election, with Labour 9/4.
I don't know. But if you want to get a message to them, probably best to paint it in foot-high letters on a placard, and wave it in front of their faces.
Literally the same people who said the country would warm to Brown, and that Ed and his "big ideas" were winning over voters, are telling us that Corbyn is just great and won't be the voter repellent we expect. It's only worth listening to them for the amusement value.
PB Tories can probably pick a better Labour leader and shadow cabinet than any group the Labour Party would come up with.
Sgt. Sunil: Alright, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we're gonna conquer, and we're gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? Rob D! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
Starmer too. He must be ambitious- I doubt he went into the Labour party to hear about pot holes at Saturday constituencies.
The backbench of the Labour party must be a sea of malcontent- never has a party leadership been as far removed from it's backbenchers as now.
Corbyn must get some traction soon. He did a pretty good job with his speech yesterday, but he needs some quick wins otherwise all we are going to hear about is plots, coups etc....
All this talk about Blairism being finished is just wrong. It would be like saying that the left was extinct after Dianne Abbot's poor showing in 2010.
Liz Kendell was a poor candidate. She had no name recognition, and once people saw her they didn't find her credible. So, like Dianne Abbot, she polled poorly, not for ideological reasons, but for being a bit crap.
Blairism for Labour simply means selecting a candidate who can appeal outside Labour's comfort zone. Corbyn is worth a throw of the dice because he could potentially attract a different type of voter to Labour. I doubt it, but we will not know anything until next May.
After Corbyn, Labour will select a candidate who has wider appeal- combining both credibility and leadership. They are more likely to be found on the right fringe- Chuka, David Miliband and Dan Jarvis. The leading two Brownites- Burnham and Cooper were found wanting.
That seems a pretty shrewd analysis, but I can't see either of the first two returning to the leadership fray. Chuka will have ruined his chances with his 'will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance' moment and Miliband is just seen as a bit of a loser (moreover, he's not even in politics any more). Jarvis might be worth a punt, but what about Keir Starmer? Do you think he might be in the mix?
It was a mistake for the tories to hit the airwaves yesterday. Priti Patel was a disaster. They need to be very careful how they handle this.
Yes completely. It's a real danger that the fact that Labour are spouting incoherent nonsense may lull Tory politicians into a sense of security. The real challenge is how best to guide the UK. No-one knows the answer to this question, but it seems to me that DC (and GO) has us on something close to the right path. Labour being wrong doesn't mean the Tories are right - hopefully just less wrong. There's a lot of room of course to be less wrong than Corbyn.
Labour are not piling up votes in their safe seats. I suspect most of the biggest parliamentary majorities are still Tory ones. Ed may have boosted the decaying core vote a little though. Presumably the most marginal Tory seats are ones which likely have had an incumbency bonus - Broxtowe being a good example. A place where there previously rumoured to be a fair few red Tories.
The list is here: the largest ones are actually Labour, but it looks pretty even for the first 20-30.
According to this one though, although it isn't easy to understand, Labour have around a hundred seats with an absolute majority (that is, more than 50% of the vote) including Liverpool Walton where Labour had a remarkable 81% of the vote. So those hundred or so should be pretty safe barring some genuine catastrophe.
I count 67 Tory seats with a majority over 20,000 with only 25 Labour ones. The Labour seats may have smaller than average electorates but I don't see much evidence that Labour vote is more entrenched in its heatlands than the Tory vote is. And it is the number of votes that matters not the percentage if you are tallying for a national vote share.
All this talk about Blairism being finished is just wrong. It would be like saying that the left was extinct after Dianne Abbot's poor showing in 2010.
Liz Kendell was a poor candidate. She had no name recognition, and once people saw her they didn't find her credible. So, like Dianne Abbot, she polled poorly, not for ideological reasons, but for being a bit crap.
Blairism for Labour simply means selecting a candidate who can appeal outside Labour's comfort zone. Corbyn is worth a throw of the dice because he could potentially attract a different type of voter to Labour. I doubt it, but we will not know anything until next May.
After Corbyn, Labour will select a candidate who has wider appeal- combining both credibility and leadership. They are more likely to be found on the right fringe- Chuka, David Miliband and Dan Jarvis. The leading two Brownites- Burnham and Cooper were found wanting.
Do you know what crash and burn is?
The last two people who went into elections with an avowedly Blairite label were Jim Murphy and Liz Kendall.
Corbyn will have enough time to mould the party. The leader after Corbyn will be someone on the Left.
Perhaps less unworldly than the Santa Claus Gone Wrong figure of Jeremy Corbyn. But on the Left.
Blairism is dead. There is no way back after Kendall’s 5 per cent. There was probably no way back after Iraq -- it is just the bleeding took a long time.
I've seen so many Oh, Tories may have underestimated Jezza/he could be XYZ that are just so tediously empty of any logic or facts.
IIRC it was Philip Collins who said such authors were trying *very hard* to be interesting. We had the same stuff about EdM for donkeys too and it wasn't worth a candle.
I don't know. But if you want to get a message to them, probably best to paint it in foot-high letters on a placard, and wave it in front of their faces.
Literally the same people who said the country would warm to Brown, and that Ed and his "big ideas" were winning over voters, are telling us that Corbyn is just great and won't be the voter repellent we expect. It's only worth listening to them for the amusement value.
PB Tories can probably pick a better Labour leader and shadow cabinet than any group the Labour Party would come up with.
It was a mistake for the tories to hit the airwaves yesterday. Priti Patel was a disaster. They need to be very careful how they handle this.
I wrote on this site some weeks ago about Tom Watson being the one to watch. I predict this 'thug in a suit' will be the next leader of the Labour - completely unopposed, because Labour will not have the stomach for another long leadership campaign. His body language on stage yesterday was quite telling.
What does it say about VCooper and ABurnham that they never got 'within a shout' of JCorbyn. Labour really are bereft of talent at the moment.
That always happens after a very long stint in power, all the people who are associated with the previous regime end up in the bin once that regime is overthrown, for instance none of those in the Wilson or Thatcher governments ever got hold of power again once their time had come to an end at the polling booth.
Same happens now, all the ministers of the Blair-Brown era will never hold office again due to their decisions in office. Angela Eagle for instance was ridiculed for saying that there was no housing crash in 2008 when she was Treasury minister, if she becomes shadow chancellor she's dead on arrival because of that.
I've seen so many Oh, Tories may have underestimated Jezza/he could be XYZ that are just so tediously empty of any logic or facts.
IIRC it was Philip Collins who said such authors were trying *very hard* to be interesting. We had the same stuff about EdM for donkeys too and it wasn't worth a candle.
I don't know. But if you want to get a message to them, probably best to paint it in foot-high letters on a placard, and wave it in front of their faces.
Literally the same people who said the country would warm to Brown, and that Ed and his "big ideas" were winning over voters, are telling us that Corbyn is just great and won't be the voter repellent we expect. It's only worth listening to them for the amusement value.
PB Tories can probably pick a better Labour leader and shadow cabinet than any group the Labour Party would come up with.
It was a mistake for the tories to hit the airwaves yesterday. Priti Patel was a disaster. They need to be very careful how they handle this.
I wrote on this site some weeks ago about Tom Watson being the one to watch. I predict this 'thug in a suit' will be the next leader of the Labour - completely unopposed, because Labour will not have the stomach for another long leadership campaign. His body language on stage yesterday was quite telling.
What does it say about VCooper and ABurnham that they never got 'within a shout' of JCorbyn. Labour really are bereft of talent at the moment.
It was a mistake for the tories to hit the airwaves yesterday. Priti Patel was a disaster. They need to be very careful how they handle this.
I wrote on this site some weeks ago about Tom Watson being the one to watch. I predict this 'thug in a suit' will be the next leader of the Labour - completely unopposed, because Labour will not have the stomach for another long leadership campaign. His body language on stage yesterday was quite telling.
What does it say about VCooper and ABurnham that they never got 'within a shout' of JCorbyn. Labour really are bereft of talent at the moment.
"Do not underestimate Jeremy Corbyn. Labour’s Blairites lie dead and dying all over the place because they made that mistake. Tory Blairites such as David Cameron might be wise to learn from this, especially given last week’s dismal, shrinking manufacturing and export figures, which were pushed far away from front pages by other stories, but which cast doubt on the vaunted recovery
Mr Corbyn reminds mature people of the days when the big parties really differed. He impresses the young because he doesn’t patronise them, and obviously believes what he says. This desire for real politics isn’t just confined to the Left. Ken Livingstone is right to call Mr Corbyn Labour’s Nigel Farage. Ukip appeals to a similar impulse. Millions are weary of being smarmed and lied to by people who actually are not that competent or impressive, and who have been picked because they look good on TV rather than because they have ideas or character
Actually, I dislike many of Mr Corbyn’s opinions – his belief in egalitarianism and high taxation, his enthusiasm for comprehensive schools, his readiness to talk to terrorists and his support for the EU. Oddly enough, these are all policies he shares with the Tory Party. But I like the honest way he states them, compared with the Tories’ slippery pretence of being what they’re not"
Why does is not surprise me that a complete loon like Peter Hitchens would be tipping great success for the another fruit and nutcase like Corbyn.
A lot of commentators on the Right, consumed by their hatred of Cameron and the Coalition, thought it was a frightfully clever wheeze to give Ed Miliband (wholly unwarrented) plaudits. Hitchens is clearly trying that silliness again, but it will be interesting to see how widespread it is this time round. 'Jezza's played a blinder!'
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
All this talk about Blairism being finished is just wrong. It would be like saying that the left was extinct after Dianne Abbot's poor showing in 2010.
Liz Kendell was a poor candidate. She had no name recognition, and once people saw her they didn't find her credible. So, like Dianne Abbot, she polled poorly, not for ideological reasons, but for being a bit crap.
Blairism for Labour simply means selecting a candidate who can appeal outside Labour's comfort zone. Corbyn is worth a throw of the dice because he could potentially attract a different type of voter to Labour. I doubt it, but we will not know anything until next May.
After Corbyn, Labour will select a candidate who has wider appeal- combining both credibility and leadership. They are more likely to be found on the right fringe- Chuka, David Miliband and Dan Jarvis. The leading two Brownites- Burnham and Cooper were found wanting.
That seems a pretty shrewd analysis, but I can't see either of the first two returning to the leadership fray. Chuka will have ruined his chances with his 'will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance' moment and Miliband is just seen as a bit of a loser (moreover, he's not even in politics any more). Jarvis might be worth a punt, but what about Keir Starmer? Do you think he might be in the mix?
Is "Blairite" even a thing, in the absence of Blair? It seemed less to be about ideology, more about the man and his team, and if it means anything absent the figurehead, it was a (very effective) recipe for electoral success from the 1990s to 2000s. Times and the public have changed, so even if it's just an electoral cookbook its ingredients will need some rejigging for the times. I don't think it makes sense to look for an "heir to Blair" as such. Clearly plenty of MPs and members from the right of the Labour party, people who had a soft spot for Blair and what he stood for, supported Cooper rather than Kendall in this contest, while Burnham was certainly prepared to ape aspects of the Blair style (the big difference between the poor quality of his frequently attempted triangulations).
I don't think that portion of the Labour party have all given up and died, nor have all the ideas in the man's copybook been forgotten or abandoned. But don't expect adherents to rally under a "Blairite" banner - even Kendall tried to avoid the term, she knew the brand was toxic to large segments of the membership.
Let's be realistic. The main response from the British voting public today will be "Who?" That's why the Conservatives are right to pin the labels to him straight away, because voters will be looking for information on this unknown character. It is also why it is a huge media relations mistake to skip the political interviews today. Already Tom Watson has laid out his position, setting a high bar for his new 'leader' on Trident and NATO. By the time we hear from JC, what will the public have heard? 1. Quotations from the past showing him as a threat to national, economic and family security 2. His own deputy laying out red lines on policy disagreements 3. At least half the shadow cabinet refusing to serve 4. His first action is to attend a political rally. Behind the curve already.
Corbyn in my view is a low risk low reward candidate, as a divisive and polarizing figure according to the polls, he's popular in London, Scotland and the North and unpopular in the South and the Midlands. But there are not many marginals in areas where Corbyn is at a disadvantage or at an advantage, just 10 left in unpopular areas, using the popularity figures Corbyn would lose 7 marginals in the Midlands and the South, while gaining 4 in London, Scotland and the North.
All this talk of Corbyn leading Labour to less than 60 seats or to victory in the next GE is pretty much old man babble, things have changed, the Midlands is as Tory as the South and it won't budge and the cities are and will be red as a communist flag as long as quality of life continues it's 40 year now decline, so they won't budge either.
You want proof? Here you go, the map of the average constituency winner between 1955-74 and the one from 2015:
All cities in England and Wales are now Labour Redoubts, while all rural areas are of the deepest Tory blue. The country lives in 2 separate worlds geographically and demographically diametrically opposed to each other with completely different views and values, one rural, one urban, one before 1970, one after 1970. And that won't change for another generation at least.
There's another type of seat, though, comprising smaller cities, or big towns. Plymouth, Reading, Swindon, Milton Keynes, Bournemouth, Harlow, Worcester, Redditch, etc. which Labour are writing off.
Nope, those already not Tory safe seats (Swindon), behave like inner cities and for a reason, Harlow for instance has the third largest share of social housing in the country. There is preciously little left for Labour to lose in the South outside of London.
I think your analysis is wrong on London. In May they failed to take 3/4 seats and almost failed in 2 others. Westminster north and Tooting remain very marginal. They are strong in inner and East London but may well already have reached their limit in the capital despite the demographic moves in their favour. They have lost ground in SW London and the southern fringes are largely safe for the blues.
Edit. In the north generally and specifically the north -west they are already looking vulnerable in several seats which were once fairly secure.
Labour are not piling up votes in their safe seats. I suspect most of the biggest parliamentary majorities are still Tory ones. Ed may have boosted the decaying core vote a little though. Presumably the most marginal Tory seats are ones which likely have had an incumbency bonus - Broxtowe being a good example. A place where there previously rumoured to be a fair few red Tories.
The list is here: the largest ones are actually Labour, but it looks pretty even for the first 20-30.
According to this one though, although it isn't easy to understand, Labour have around a hundred seats with an absolute majority (that is, more than 50% of the vote) including Liverpool Walton where Labour had a remarkable 81% of the vote. So those hundred or so should be pretty safe barring some genuine catastrophe.
I count 67 Tory seats with a majority over 20,000 with only 25 Labour ones. The Labour seats may have smaller than average electorates but I don't see much evidence that Labour vote is more entrenched in its heatlands than the Tory vote is. And it is the number of votes that matters not the percentage if you are tallying for a national vote share.
Tory seats undoubtedly do have a much larger active electorate (I phrased that carefully) than Labour seats. So, for example, in Liverpool Walton the majority is 28,000 but only UKIP of the other parties saved their deposit because only 38,000 voted. Meanwhile, in Maidenhead May's majority was near-identical in absolute terms but because 53,000 voted she has a much smaller overall figure.
That's why I put both of them up. I think it's rather more nuanced than you are putting it. The number of votes is meaningless unless it's as a proportion of the size of the seat - after all, in Aberavon Labour have a huge relative majority (33 points) despite being only 11,000 ahead officially, because only 30,000 people voted. It would be almost impossible for Labour to have a 20,000+ majority in such a seat. Meanwhile in nearby Cardiff North the Conservatives took 6,000 more votes and yet have only a 4 point (2,000) majority over Labour. So the Aberavon vote is inefficiently used, while the Tory vote is efficiently used.
It was a mistake for the tories to hit the airwaves yesterday. Priti Patel was a disaster. They need to be very careful how they handle this.
I wrote on this site some weeks ago about Tom Watson being the one to watch. I predict this 'thug in a suit' will be the next leader of the Labour - completely unopposed, because Labour will not have the stomach for another long leadership campaign. His body language on stage yesterday was quite telling.
What does it say about VCooper and ABurnham that they never got 'within a shout' of JCorbyn. Labour really are bereft of talent at the moment.
5s on betfair.
Shadsy has 8/1 on Watson as next leader.
Though the 16/1 on him being Labour leader at the next GE is probably better value.
Is "Blairite" even a thing, in the absence of Blair? It seemed less to be about ideology, more about the man and his team, and if it means anything absent the figurehead, it was a (very effective) recipe for electoral success from the 1990s to 2000s. Times and the public have changed, so even if it's just an electoral cookbook its ingredients will need some rejigging for the times. I don't think it makes sense to look for an "heir to Blair" as such. Clearly plenty of MPs and members from the right of the Labour party, people who had a soft spot for Blair and what he stood for, supported Cooper rather than Kendall in this contest, while Burnham was certainly prepared to ape aspects of the Blair style (the big difference between the poor quality of his frequently attempted triangulations).
I don't think that portion of the Labour party have all given up and died, nor have all the ideas in the man's copybook been forgotten or abandoned. But don't expect adherents to rally under a "Blairite" banner - even Kendall tried to avoid the term, she knew the brand was toxic to large segments of the membership.
Labels often endure long after their leaders have died or retired. I don't think the 'Bevanites' ceased to be Bevanites until they swung even further left and became 'Bennites'. I've never heard of them being called 'Footites.' Then of course there were the 'Peelites', still an identifiable group as late as 1859 although Peel himself had died in 1850, Aberdeen had been driven from politics in disgrace in 1855 and only Gladstone of all of them was still a senior and identifiable figure in the Liberal coalition.
Labour are not piling up votes in their safe seats. I suspect most of the biggest parliamentary majorities are still Tory ones. Ed may have boosted the decaying core vote a little though. Presumably the most marginal Tory seats are ones which likely have had an incumbency bonus - Broxtowe being a good example. A place where there previously rumoured to be a fair few red Tories.
The list is here: the largest ones are actually Labour, but it looks pretty even for the first 20-30.
According to this one though, although it isn't easy to understand, Labour have around a hundred seats with an absolute majority (that is, more than 50% of the vote) including Liverpool Walton where Labour had a remarkable 81% of the vote. So those hundred or so should be pretty safe barring some genuine catastrophe.
I count 67 Tory seats with a majority over 20,000 with only 25 Labour ones. The Labour seats may have smaller than average electorates but I don't see much evidence that Labour vote is more entrenched in its heatlands than the Tory vote is. And it is the number of votes that matters not the percentage if you are tallying for a national vote share.
Worth bearing in mind the boundary review. The shrinking seats will mostly be Labour ones. Those 100 seats with absolute Labour majorities will be more marginal as well as fewer in number. Deselections and reselections will wipe out the centrists.
And in impregnability - didn't that used to be true of SLab? The whole house of cards is vulnerable to collapse.
I've seen so many Oh, Tories may have underestimated Jezza/he could be XYZ that are just so tediously empty of any logic or facts.
IIRC it was Philip Collins who said such authors were trying *very hard* to be interesting. We had the same stuff about EdM for donkeys too and it wasn't worth a candle.
I don't know. But if you want to get a message to them, probably best to paint it in foot-high letters on a placard, and wave it in front of their faces.
Literally the same people who said the country would warm to Brown, and that Ed and his "big ideas" were winning over voters, are telling us that Corbyn is just great and won't be the voter repellent we expect. It's only worth listening to them for the amusement value.
PB Tories can probably pick a better Labour leader and shadow cabinet than any group the Labour Party would come up with.
Funnily enough, I think Labour and the Tories both have the same problem with Corbyn. Most people who don't spend their time on forums like this are simply not going to be interested enough to know what all the fuss is about. Corbyn might well be a good deal to the left of previous Labour leaders, but he is only about as left wing as the media generally portray Labour leaders as. In so far as people who give politics a relatively small amount of their attention are concerned, they will probably be wondering what the fuss is about. It's a bigger problem for Labour because the status quo doesn't work for them, but I suspect Corbyn will get neither a bounce nor a fall. He simply isn't different enough to break out.
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
SUNIL I don't recall any shopping Malls being blown up in SI..by British dissidents.. and if there were any.. which there were not.. then I don't think any leading politician would support it..
Labour are not piling up votes in their safe seats. I suspect most of the biggest parliamentary majorities are still Tory ones. Ed may have boosted the decaying core vote a little though. Presumably the most marginal Tory seats are ones which likely have had an incumbency bonus - Broxtowe being a good example. A place where there previously rumoured to be a fair few red Tories.
The list is here: the largest ones are actually Labour, but it looks pretty even for the first 20-30.
According to this one though, although it isn't easy to understand, Labour have around a hundred seats with an absolute majority (that is, more than 50% of the vote) including Liverpool Walton where Labour had a remarkable 81% of the vote. So those hundred or so should be pretty safe barring some genuine catastrophe.
I count 67 Tory seats with a majority over 20,000 with only 25 Labour ones. The Labour seats may have smaller than average electorates but I don't see much evidence that Labour vote is more entrenched in its heatlands than the Tory vote is. And it is the number of votes that matters not the percentage if you are tallying for a national vote share.
Worth bearing in mind the boundary review. The shrinking seats will mostly be Labour ones. Those 100 seats with absolute Labour majorities will be more marginal as well as fewer in number. Deselections and reselections will wipe out the centrists.
And in impregnability - didn't that used to be true of SLab? The whole house of cards is vulnerable to collapse.
Does anyone think this will happen?
Not complaining if it does, although it seems too good to be true.
"I hope you've all noticed our little name change. We're now @JeremyCorbyn4PM. La lucha continúa #Jeremy4PM "
Fairly sure we saw off the Spanish a while back.
I'm pretty keen that the unemployed Spanish fuckwits that lounge about on the funds of the European taxpayer in the UK go and find something to do with their lives. When they've achieved anything beyond the most basic of bodily functions then they can start to express a view.
I've seen so many Oh, Tories may have underestimated Jezza/he could be XYZ that are just so tediously empty of any logic or facts.
IIRC it was Philip Collins who said such authors were trying *very hard* to be interesting. We had the same stuff about EdM for donkeys too and it wasn't worth a candle.
I don't know. But if you want to get a message to them, probably best to paint it in foot-high letters on a placard, and wave it in front of their faces.
Literally the same people who said the country would warm to Brown, and that Ed and his "big ideas" were winning over voters, are telling us that Corbyn is just great and won't be the voter repellent we expect. It's only worth listening to them for the amusement value.
PB Tories can probably pick a better Labour leader and shadow cabinet than any group the Labour Party would come up with.
Corbyn 59.5% Blairites 40.5%
Corbyn 251,000 voters
Cameron 11,334,576 voters
[sigh] Those were completely different elections, my PB Tory "friend"
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
No it's not. That's twat. Prat means arse.
Only on PB: the true meanings of four-letter words.
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
No it's not. That's twat. Prat means arse.
Not in south London where I taught for 33 years it doesn't.
I've just placed my first bet on the outcome of the 2020 General Election, backing Labour to be the party to win the most seats. Those nice people at Bet365 are offering decimal odds of 3.75, i.e. 11/4 in old money, against this being the outcome. However you look at it, this is a two horse race between Labour and the Conservatives and these odds therefore imply that Labour has a 26.7% chance and the Tories a 73.3% chance of winning the most seats. I see it as being a great deal closer what with "events" and all that, and have invested £72.73 on Labour to win a nice round £200 .... wish me luck! As ever - DYOR.
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
No it's not. That's twat. Prat means arse.
Only on PB: the true meanings of four-letter words.
Hilary Clinton, campaigning in 1996 and trying to tack right - 'To hear some of our young people talk, you'ld think that 'work' was a four letter word.'
SUNIL I don't recall any shopping Malls being blown up in SI..by British dissidents.. and if there were any.. which there were not.. then I don't think any leading politician would support it..
The Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974 were a series of co-ordinated car bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, Republic of Ireland. Three exploded in Dublin during rush hour and a fourth exploded in Monaghan almost ninety minutes later. They killed 33 civilians and a full-term unborn child, and injured almost 300. The bombings were the deadliest attack of the conflict known as the Troubles
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
No it's not. That's twat. Prat means arse.
Not in south London where I taught for 33 years it doesn't.
Felix, if you taught otherwise then you're wrong. Your students were creating a new meaning for the term if that was what they used. It means 'idiot' mostly in the UK but certainly in the US means 'bottom'.
SUNIL I don't recall any shopping Malls being blown up in SI..by British dissidents.. and if there were any.. which there were not.. then I don't think any leading politician would support it..
The Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974 were a series of co-ordinated car bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, Republic of Ireland. Three exploded in Dublin during rush hour and a fourth exploded in Monaghan almost ninety minutes later. They killed 33 civilians and a full-term unborn child, and injured almost 300. The bombings were the deadliest attack of the conflict known as the Troubles
Yes... now name the British politician that invited those bombers to the House of Commons the following week.... come on now, don't be shy.
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
No it's not. That's twat. Prat means arse.
Not in south London where I taught for 33 years it doesn't.
"She's a far better piece Than the Viceroy's niece, Who has also more fur on her prat."
That's from 1942, so the female genitalia meaning has been around for quite some time. But the "backside" use is even longer established (The Canter's Dictionary of 1608 lists "prat" as meaning "buttock". That was by Thomas Dekker but apparently mostly plagiarised from the mysterious Thomas Harman.)
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
No it's not. That's twat. Prat means arse.
Not in south London where I taught for 33 years it doesn't.
Felix, if you taught otherwise then you're wrong. Your students were creating a new meaning for the term if that was what they used. It means 'idiot' mostly in the UK but certainly in the US means 'bottom'.
I taught nothing - twas how the students and others used it. BTW - thisis not the USA.
I'm a feminist in that I believe in equal treatment. Plato is as much of a blinkered prat as the most idiotic of the men on here (no mean feat), and I'm not afraid to point that out. She has the double whammy, in terms of crimes against the Internet, of not only being thick and arrogant (not a good combo), but also posting tons of clickbait, which is even more inexcusable. It'd be sexist for me to have double standards when being compelled by common decency to point this out, just because she is a delicate, defenceless female, or whatever.
I would hope the moderators would intervene to censure gratuitously unpleasant comments such as the above when made to any poster. Clearly Mr. Wisemann is stressed out by the predicament of his party but he does not need to take it out on innocents.
What is Ms (I presume) Wisemann saying though? Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
You do realise that the term prat is an alternative for c***?
No it's not. That's twat. Prat means arse.
Not in south London where I taught for 33 years it doesn't.
Felix, if you taught otherwise then you're wrong. Your students were creating a new meaning for the term if that was what they used. It means 'idiot' mostly in the UK but certainly in the US means 'bottom'.
I usually spell it "pratt" but apparently "prat" is the older form. And I mostly use it for "idiot". But (see earlier post) it wasn't Felix's students who were first to use it for the "female genitalia" purpose. I wonder if that usage of "prat" was originally a bowdlerised form of "twat", using a pre-existing term for buttocks?
SUNIL I don't recall any shopping Malls being blown up in SI..by British dissidents.. and if there were any.. which there were not.. then I don't think any leading politician would support it..
The Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974 were a series of co-ordinated car bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, Republic of Ireland. Three exploded in Dublin during rush hour and a fourth exploded in Monaghan almost ninety minutes later. They killed 33 civilians and a full-term unborn child, and injured almost 300. The bombings were the deadliest attack of the conflict known as the Troubles
Yes... now name the British politician that invited those bombers to the House of Commons the following week.... come on now, don't be shy.
The report said it was likely that British security force personnel were involved but had insufficient evidence of higher-level involvement. However, the inquiry was hindered by the British government's refusal to release key documents.[4] The victims' families and others have continued to campaign for the British government to release these documents.
Comments
EDIT - the typo in his name was not deliberate.
Perhaps Sturgeon should really break the political mould and advise Scots to go back to voting for SLab. If only she'd done that in May, we'd now be looking at an...err...Tory majority.
Corbyn 59.5%
Blairites 40.5%
So there!
It be interesting to see how the pbCOM great and good would treat a prolific lefty female poster. Oh- I remember Snowflake now, and she got terrible treatment.
BTW- Snowflake was not Yvette Cooper.
But there are not many marginals in areas where Corbyn is at a disadvantage or at an advantage, just 10 left in unpopular areas, using the popularity figures Corbyn would lose 7 marginals in the Midlands and the South, while gaining 4 in London, Scotland and the North.
All this talk of Corbyn leading Labour to less than 60 seats or to victory in the next GE is pretty much old man babble, things have changed, the Midlands is as Tory as the South and it won't budge and the cities are and will be red as a communist flag as long as quality of life continues it's 40 year now decline, so they won't budge either.
You want proof?
Here you go, the map of the average constituency winner between 1955-74 and the one from 2015:
http://i.imgur.com/qRSbEOC.png
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/6645_23_08_15_2_09_26.png
All cities in England and Wales are now Labour Redoubts, while all rural areas are of the deepest Tory blue.
The country lives in 2 separate worlds geographically and demographically diametrically opposed to each other with completely different views and values, one rural, one urban, one before 1970, one after 1970. And that won't change for another generation at least.
Which comes right back to the simple basic fact. To change things you need to achieve government and power rather than be a protest party full of placard waving, cricket pitch digging activists. You need to look like and act like a credible and alternative government to do so. Blairs looked like that hence the landslides plus he occupied if not dominated the central area of politics for years.
While we're on the subject......What's Corby's view on the present situation in South Africa or come to that in Zimbabwe no longer the "basket of Africa" but the basket case.
If so, does this mean that Ms Harman is on the point of becoming reconciled to the Liberal Democrats?
I never thought to see the moment, but you never know, do you?
There are quite a few marginals to be lost there (or seats that should not be marginal, but could become so). As for Scotland, that's gone and it isn't coming back (remember, the Tories used to top the popular vote there regularly from the 1920s to the 1960s - that feels a VERY long time ago)!
You are of course right to say that as matters stand, Corbyn would be unlikely to as low a result as some of the more hysterical people have considered due to his strength in London, Merseyside and the North East. But certainly 180 is not an unreasonable expectation at the moment, unless a new and truly devastating scandal emerges OR Labour change their leader.
One is shouting the same verbal abuse as fanatical Tories (so probably an SNP from the highlands), the other is showering Corbyn with praise like a hard lefty (so probably an SNP from the cities), and the third one is following the party line.
It will be nice to watch how the dynamics of the group develop over time.
There is preciously little left for Labour to lose in the South outside of London.
According to this one though, although it isn't easy to understand, Labour have around a hundred seats with an absolute majority (that is, more than 50% of the vote) including Liverpool Walton where Labour had a remarkable 81% of the vote. So those hundred or so should be pretty safe barring some genuine catastrophe.
Liz Kendell was a poor candidate. She had no name recognition, and once people saw her they didn't find her credible. So, like Dianne Abbot, she polled poorly, not for ideological reasons, but for being a bit crap.
Blairism for Labour simply means selecting a candidate who can appeal outside Labour's comfort zone. Corbyn is worth a throw of the dice because he could potentially attract a different type of voter to Labour. I doubt it, but we will not know anything until next May.
After Corbyn, Labour will select a candidate who has wider appeal- combining both credibility and leadership. They are more likely to be found on the right fringe- Chuka, David Miliband and Dan Jarvis. The leading two Brownites- Burnham and Cooper were found wanting.
I am beginning to think that defections are more likely than I previously thought.
'Rather Corbyn will be to many voters refreshingly direct with a political stance which might be boiled down to “immigration good, spending good, welfare good; war bad”.'
I'd agree with that. People will like the honesty of the man even if they have no intention of voting for him.
Sadly, nobody should be laughing (although George Osborne doubtless is).
I wrote on this site some weeks ago about Tom Watson being the one to watch. I predict this 'thug in a suit' will be the next leader of the Labour - completely unopposed, because Labour will not have the stomach for another long leadership campaign. His body language on stage yesterday was quite telling.
What does it say about VCooper and ABurnham that they never got 'within a shout' of JCorbyn. Labour really are bereft of talent at the moment.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1328589-stephen-daisley-what-does-jeremy-corbyn-mean-for-scotland-and-the-snp/
Before Corbyn can have any hope of taking the fight to the SNP he has to first sort out the somewhat messy SLAB stables. At the moment we have Glasgow "Dinosaur" SLAB who have just resurrected Frank McAveety as the council leader, then theres Kezia leading fantasy Edinburgh SLAB in TwitterBlogLand and finally we have Corbyn's man on the ground Neil Findlay leading Corbyn SLAB which is based in his garage. If Corbyn wanted to shake things up a bit in Scotland appointing Findlay as SoS for Scotland would be an inspired move, with Murray as his deputy.
PB Tories can probably pick a better Labour leader and shadow cabinet than any group the Labour Party would come up with.
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? Rob D! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
The backbench of the Labour party must be a sea of malcontent- never has a party leadership been as far removed from it's backbenchers as now.
Corbyn must get some traction soon. He did a pretty good job with his speech yesterday, but he needs some quick wins otherwise all we are going to hear about is plots, coups etc....
The last two people who went into elections with an avowedly Blairite label were Jim Murphy and Liz Kendall.
Corbyn will have enough time to mould the party. The leader after Corbyn will be someone on the Left.
Perhaps less unworldly than the Santa Claus Gone Wrong figure of Jeremy Corbyn. But on the Left.
Blairism is dead. There is no way back after Kendall’s 5 per cent. There was probably no way back after Iraq -- it is just the bleeding took a long time.
IIRC it was Philip Collins who said such authors were trying *very hard* to be interesting. We had the same stuff about EdM for donkeys too and it wasn't worth a candle.
Same happens now, all the ministers of the Blair-Brown era will never hold office again due to their decisions in office.
Angela Eagle for instance was ridiculed for saying that there was no housing crash in 2008 when she was Treasury minister, if she becomes shadow chancellor she's dead on arrival because of that.
Blairites 40.5%
"The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security."
Do you remember the one about the marauding scots?
It's the way you tell 'em, Dave.
I don't think that portion of the Labour party have all given up and died, nor have all the ideas in the man's copybook been forgotten or abandoned. But don't expect adherents to rally under a "Blairite" banner - even Kendall tried to avoid the term, she knew the brand was toxic to large segments of the membership.
That's why the Conservatives are right to pin the labels to him straight away, because voters will be looking for information on this unknown character.
It is also why it is a huge media relations mistake to skip the political interviews today. Already Tom Watson has laid out his position, setting a high bar for his new 'leader' on Trident and NATO. By the time we hear from JC, what will the public have heard?
1. Quotations from the past showing him as a threat to national, economic and family security
2. His own deputy laying out red lines on policy disagreements
3. At least half the shadow cabinet refusing to serve
4. His first action is to attend a political rally.
Behind the curve already.
Edit. In the north generally and specifically the north -west they are already looking vulnerable in several seats which were once fairly secure.
That's why I put both of them up. I think it's rather more nuanced than you are putting it. The number of votes is meaningless unless it's as a proportion of the size of the seat - after all, in Aberavon Labour have a huge relative majority (33 points) despite being only 11,000 ahead officially, because only 30,000 people voted. It would be almost impossible for Labour to have a 20,000+ majority in such a seat. Meanwhile in nearby Cardiff North the Conservatives took 6,000 more votes and yet have only a 4 point (2,000) majority over Labour. So the Aberavon vote is inefficiently used, while the Tory vote is efficiently used.
Though the 16/1 on him being Labour leader at the next GE is probably better value.
And in impregnability - didn't that used to be true of SLab? The whole house of cards is vulnerable to collapse.
https://twitter.com/JeremyCorbyn4PM/status/643056097515970560
Cameron 11,334,576 voters
Apart from just being wrong?
I think she's saying very little, and as such it's hard to take any criticism she might make against Plato very seriously.
Just because you post something doesn't mean it has any worth. The above post doesn't have any worth in my view. To be fair most of my own posts don't have much merit either, but I'd hope that this one raises my standard.
On a personal and possibly biased note I think really quite well of Plato's postings.
I preferred it when you were a kipper!
Not complaining if it does, although it seems too good to be true.
Fairly sure we saw off the Spanish a while back.
I'm pretty keen that the unemployed Spanish fuckwits that lounge about on the funds of the European taxpayer in the UK go and find something to do with their lives. When they've achieved anything beyond the most basic of bodily functions then they can start to express a view.
Only on PB: the true meanings of four-letter words.
(must run diagnostic on my Tebbit Chip - seems to be on the blink again!)
I've just placed my first bet on the outcome of the 2020 General Election, backing Labour to be the party to win the most seats.
Those nice people at Bet365 are offering decimal odds of 3.75, i.e. 11/4 in old money, against this being the outcome.
However you look at it, this is a two horse race between Labour and the Conservatives and these odds therefore imply that Labour has a 26.7% chance and the Tories a 73.3% chance of winning the most seats. I see it as being a great deal closer what with "events" and all that, and have invested £72.73 on Labour to win a nice round £200 .... wish me luck!
As ever - DYOR.
The Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974 were a series of co-ordinated car bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, Republic of Ireland. Three exploded in Dublin during rush hour and a fourth exploded in Monaghan almost ninety minutes later. They killed 33 civilians and a full-term unborn child, and injured almost 300. The bombings were the deadliest attack of the conflict known as the Troubles
Than the Viceroy's niece,
Who has also more fur on her prat."
That's from 1942, so the female genitalia meaning has been around for quite some time. But the "backside" use is even longer established (The Canter's Dictionary of 1608 lists "prat" as meaning "buttock". That was by Thomas Dekker but apparently mostly plagiarised from the mysterious Thomas Harman.)
new thread