She is one of the few supporters of Sandi Toksvig's Women's Party and has been actively anti-Labour since she thought Ed Miliband was acting too tough over austerity and benefits. So if you're thinking in "loony left" terms, she is well past Corbyn's part of the spectrum anyway. It's the upset full-blown Corbynites you should be looking out for, and there ought to be a few already...
I've got this amusing image of Corbyn stuck in the HoC ringing around every Labour MP (waking many of them up) asking them their views on Trident, and then offering them the job. Except they're all giving the wrong answer or turning it down.
Or maybe he's still trying to get hold of John woodcock, who hasn't the remotest inkling that he's about to be offered Defence, so surreal is it.
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes Labour: Angela Eagle will be shadow First Secretary of State as well as Shadow BIS. She'll deputise for Corbyn in PMQs when Cameron is away
So, you suggest, 60% of the Party's voices [ whether correct or not ] should be ignored ? Maybe , professional politicians can't get their head round it.
They shouldn't be ignored. They should be made to leave.
That's even harder than breaking the "union link". How on earth do you break the "membership link"?
Twitter Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 4m4 minutes ago Seems this idea of rotating front bench team at #PMQs is not a runner. @angelaeagle is Shad First Sec of State so she'll stand in for Corbyn
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
Ed was crap and will never be Prime Minister. Jeremy will never be prime minister.
I don't think Labour will ever pick as crap a leader as Ed Miliband. Jeremy is not crap. He's not Ed, he's not IDS or Hague, or Gordon Brown- a rogues gallery of crappy leaders. Jeremy is just unelectable. A subtle but important difference.
The most common comment I got canvassing was they are all the same.
Not now clear water between Tories and a more equal society is on offer while ever Corbyn remains.
Lets see if Labour are wiped out or gain ground as a result of the clear water.
PB Tories are 100% certain the public will not like Jezza policies.
I am not sure which way this will go.
Time will tell.
Are we getting the first rumblings of:
JCICIPM Vs JCWNBPM?
No, if it was EICIPM, then it should really be just JICIPM (or JWNBPM, if you prefer!).
No, Jezza is IDS and I predict he will be replaced by Hilary Benn, the new Shadow Foreign Secretary, in 2 or 3 years time, much as IDS was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.
Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.
If the Blairites were to form a new party they would forever get rid of the union link which has always provided the infrastructure for the hard Left to come back.
And forever get rid of the £££££££.
That's why it won't happen, instead they will wait out Corbyn even if it takes five years. There are no City hedgies waiting to back Labour - even New Labour. Money is power and the unions are the main source apart from people with lots of it.
I don't think the money makes up for the liability of 60% of the party voting for a leadership of terrorist sympathisers.
Ed was crap and will never be Prime Minister. Jeremy will never be prime minister.
I don't think Labour will ever pick as crap a leader as Ed Miliband. Jeremy is not crap. He's not Ed, he's not IDS or Hague, or Gordon Brown- a rogues gallery of crappy leaders. Jeremy is just unelectable. A subtle but important difference.
The most common comment I got canvassing was they are all the same.
Not now clear water between Tories and a more equal society is on offer while ever Corbyn remains.
Lets see if Labour are wiped out or gain ground as a result of the clear water.
PB Tories are 100% certain the public will not like Jezza policies.
I am not sure which way this will go.
Time will tell.
Are we getting the first rumblings of:
JCICIPM Vs JCWNBPM?
No, if it was EICIPM, then it should really be just JICIPM (or JWNBPM, if you prefer!).
No, Jezza is IDS and I predict he will be replaced by Hilary Benn, the new Shadow Foreign Secretary, in 2 or 3 years time, much as IDS was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
However, it does indicate how likely Corbyn is to attract Green returners - basically he isn't going to.
A Comres poll recently showed the only group likely to switch to Corbyn in significant numbers would be Green voters
Not so long ago you were predicting that a Corbyn win would be drawing everyone back to Labour. I think it's time you faced up to the truth - your beloved Labour Party is dead.
So, you suggest, 60% of the Party's voices [ whether correct or not ] should be ignored ? Maybe , professional politicians can't get their head round it.
They shouldn't be ignored. They should be made to leave.
That's even harder than breaking the "union link". How on earth do you break the "membership link"?
Replace their leader in a coup with a coronation, wait for them all to eff off to the Greens or TUSC. It's already been done successfully this century, though UKIP were the lucky recipients that time.
It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.
Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.
I am not sure that any vote is necessary. The only thing being proposed is to build some new submarines to replace the existing ones. Does building four boats need parliamentary approval?
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.
Goodnight.
So this entire issue with Defence has actually revolved about getting a Blairite, probably pro-Trident into the job. I await the SNP reaction with interest...
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
If the Blairites were to form a new party they would forever get rid of the union link which has always provided the infrastructure for the hard Left to come back.
And forever get rid of the £££££££.
That's why it won't happen, instead they will wait out Corbyn even if it takes five years. There are no City hedgies waiting to back Labour - even New Labour. Money is power and the unions are the main source apart from people with lots of it.
I don't think the money makes up for the liability of 60% of the party voting for a leadership of terrorist sympathisers.
I think it does. You still have a party if lots of people stop voting for you, but you don't have a party if you can't pay for an office or advertisements. The Conservatives will always have hedgies or Belizean businessmen giving donations, and Labour's equivalent is the unions.
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.
Goodnight.
W T F
Seriously, this is more W T F than Lucy Powell.
She's on the board of PROGRESS.
He's the Chair! Not sure where that leaves opposition to the Welfare bill!
It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.
Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.
When the SNP make Trident Renewal one of their "Material Changes of Circumstances" to trigger the Second Referendum, it is very likely Cameron will bottle it and kick Trident back into the long grass.
So, you suggest, 60% of the Party's voices [ whether correct or not ] should be ignored ? Maybe , professional politicians can't get their head round it.
They shouldn't be ignored. They should be made to leave.
That's even harder than breaking the "union link". How on earth do you break the "membership link"?
Replace their leader in a coup with a coronation, wait for them all to eff off to the Greens or TUSC. It's already been done successfully this century, though UKIP were the lucky recipients that time.
If that's the plan, they'd have to get on with it quickly. After this result the balance of far or hard left versus centrists in the membership is only going to veer further left as disillusioned centrists quit (a lot of the 4.5% who voted for Kendall must feel they've been practically excommunicated). The more power the membership get given, and particularly if they get to (de)select a tranche of MPs, the more it becomes one-way traffic, surely?
The UKIP thing was different - that was a personality cult. Ideas are harder to kill, and Corbyn is just a figurehead that a lot of hopes and dreams have been pinned on by people who "want their party back" (even if they never really had it in the first place, bless the misinformed young'uns).
And what precisely can Gloria bring to the role of shadow Defence Secretary? She has less than zero background in what is a very technical role. I don't think sitting on the GMTV sofa is adequate preparation for that job...
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.
Goodnight.
W T F
Seriously, this is more W T F than Lucy Powell.
She's on the board of PROGRESS.
A minute ago you were severely criticizing Corbyn for being a lefty. So who cares about partisan opinion, I'm off, you can stay here and moan all night.
If the Blairites were to form a new party they would forever get rid of the union link which has always provided the infrastructure for the hard Left to come back.
And forever get rid of the £££££££.
That's why it won't happen, instead they will wait out Corbyn even if it takes five years. There are no City hedgies waiting to back Labour - even New Labour. Money is power and the unions are the main source apart from people with lots of it.
I don't think the money makes up for the liability of 60% of the party voting for a leadership of terrorist sympathisers.
I think it does. You still have a party if lots of people stop voting for you, but you don't have a party if you can't pay for an office or advertisements. The Conservatives will always have hedgies or Belizean businessmen giving donations, and Labour's equivalent is the unions.
They wouldn't have no money. There's enough media luvvies and small donors about.
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.
Goodnight.
So this entire issue with Defence has actually revolved about getting a Blairite, probably pro-Trident into the job. I await the SNP reaction with interest...
It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.
Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.
I am not sure that any vote is necessary. The only thing being proposed is to build some new submarines to replace the existing ones. Does building four boats need parliamentary approval?
Don't worry you only need to get the approval of 35 Labour MPs. That cannot be a problem surely?
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.
Goodnight.
W T F
Seriously, this is more W T F than Lucy Powell.
She's on the board of PROGRESS.
He's the Chair! Not sure where that leaves opposition to the Welfare bill!
No, I mean She. Gloria de Piero is on the board of Progress (under Woodcock who still isn't confirmed).
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.
Goodnight.
W T F
Seriously, this is more W T F than Lucy Powell.
She's on the board of PROGRESS.
He's the Chair! Not sure where that leaves opposition to the Welfare bill!
No, I mean She. Gloria de Piero is on the board of Progress (under Woodcock who still isn't confirmed).
I know you mean she. I was just suggesting that he was arguably more astonishing.
It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.
Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.
When the SNP make Trident Renewal one of their "Material Changes of Circumstances" to trigger the Second Referendum, it is very likely Cameron will bottle it and kick Trident back into the long grass.
How can something that was in the manifesto of the Westminster winner be a "material change"?
In any case Nicola's too canny to paint herself into such a corner.....
If the Blairites were to form a new party they would forever get rid of the union link which has always provided the infrastructure for the hard Left to come back.
And forever get rid of the £££££££.
That's why it won't happen, instead they will wait out Corbyn even if it takes five years. There are no City hedgies waiting to back Labour - even New Labour. Money is power and the unions are the main source apart from people with lots of it.
I don't think the money makes up for the liability of 60% of the party voting for a leadership of terrorist sympathisers.
I think it does. You still have a party if lots of people stop voting for you, but you don't have a party if you can't pay for an office or advertisements. The Conservatives will always have hedgies or Belizean businessmen giving donations, and Labour's equivalent is the unions.
They wouldn't have no money. There's enough media luvvies and small donors about.
I think you acknowledge from your choice of language that this suggestion is rather unrealistic. It may have been different 30 years ago, but nowadays I suspect the typical media worker is a step or two above an unpaid intern on the salary ladder, and a small-donor-financed campaign would look like that of the Greens, i.e. unnoticeable in most constituencies.
Money isn't something the Conservative Party has to worry about, but every other party does.
After canceling Marr, and now Today, what are the odds he wont appear at PMQs?
Cam must be pinching himself.
He could and should make a statement out of PMQs.
He should ask:
1. That the PM must give a straight answer to a straight question. No evasion.
2. The Mob culture must end from all sides.
The Tories and the Speaker will almost certainly refuse. Corbyn will say he will not participate then.
The idea that the shouting and jeering is hugely popular with the public is actually misplaced. The public also wants to hear a clear answer to a clear question.
The PMQ did not start with Magna Carta or 1832. It only started in the 50s. So no great tradition.
Won't work. Even when straight answers are given, oppositions don't acknowledge them (granted, they are rare), so it's an impossible demand to fulfill.
"Ed Miliband staked everything on his opening question: would the Prime Minister rule out raising VAT? Having asked it, the Labour leader sat down, confidently awaiting his opponent’s stumbling, circuitous, tellingly evasive answer. After all, there was no way Mr Cameron was going to say yes.
“Yes,” said Mr Cameron.
The look on Mr Miliband’s face. It was as if an eagle had swooped out of the sky and swiped the sandwich from his hands.”
Even those days of Miliband being torn a new one at PMQs seem like halycon days for Labour compared to now. Two months out from a GE and at at least level in the polls, Miliband upping his game. Things were looking promising. I mean, Ed Balls, next to Mili there, seems like a sensible chap and a political and intellectual heavyweight in comparison to the new shadow cabinet.
However, it does indicate how likely Corbyn is to attract Green returners - basically he isn't going to.
A Comres poll recently showed the only group likely to switch to Corbyn in significant numbers would be Green voters
Not so long ago you were predicting that a Corbyn win would be drawing everyone back to Labour. I think it's time you faced up to the truth - your beloved Labour Party is dead.
Firstly I am not and never have been Labour, second I never once said Corbyn would attract floating Tory voters, just some leftwingers back, most of whom will be in the Greens
So, you suggest, 60% of the Party's voices [ whether correct or not ] should be ignored ? Maybe , professional politicians can't get their head round it.
They shouldn't be ignored. They should be made to leave.
That's even harder than breaking the "union link". How on earth do you break the "membership link"?
Replace their leader in a coup with a coronation, wait for them all to eff off to the Greens or TUSC. It's already been done successfully this century, though UKIP were the lucky recipients that time.
If that's the plan, they'd have to get on with it quickly. After this result the balance of far or hard left versus centrists in the membership is only going to veer further left as disillusioned centrists quit (a lot of the 4.5% who voted for Kendall must feel they've been practically excommunicated). The more power the membership get given, and particularly if they get to (de)select a tranche of MPs, the more it becomes one-way traffic, surely?
The UKIP thing was different - that was a personality cult. Ideas are harder to kill, and Corbyn is just a figurehead that a lot of hopes and dreams have been pinned on by people who "want their party back" (even if they never really had it in the first place, bless the misinformed young'uns).
Going back my earlier hypothetical.
The 3 main assets of a party are its parliamentary seats, its organisational nous, and its grassroots membership. Finances will tend to follow those with a prospect of power.
If you reach the stage where your mass membership have become a net negative, so much so that you're better off shot of them, then from the MPs' point of view they've already got the seats anyway. A Corbynified Labour organisation will likely have purged a lot of party workers, aside from all those who are already quitting and heading out into wonkland. So the organisational brains could probably be re-recruited fairly easily.
If there is an "unstoppable force vs immovable object" aspect to what's going on, then forming the New Democrats isn't an unthinkable option, and doesn't really require more MPs than a party coup would. However, it does require them to be even more totally committed and to take more of a risk, so while I don't expect it to happen, the prospect becomes more likely in the event that they all have their backs to the wall. The "600 seat redrawing", and the prospect of having to get support from local membership to find a seat, might just be enough to provoke a split. In that situation many MPs are stuffed if they stick with Labour even if they do strike first to get rid of Corbyn, unless they can get the more extreme elements of the membership to leave almost immediately.
Ed was crap and will never be Prime Minister. Jeremy will never be prime minister.
I don't think Labour will ever pick as crap a leader as Ed Miliband. Jeremy is not crap. He's not Ed, he's not IDS or Hague, or Gordon Brown- a rogues gallery of crappy leaders. Jeremy is just unelectable. A subtle but important difference.
The most common comment I got canvassing was they are all the same.
Not now clear water between Tories and a more equal society is on offer while ever Corbyn remains.
Lets see if Labour are wiped out or gain ground as a result of the clear water.
PB Tories are 100% certain the public will not like Jezza policies.
I am not sure which way this will go.
Time will tell.
Are we getting the first rumblings of:
JCICIPM Vs JCWNBPM?
No, if it was EICIPM, then it should really be just JICIPM (or JWNBPM, if you prefer!).
No, Jezza is IDS and I predict he will be replaced by Hilary Benn, the new Shadow Foreign Secretary, in 2 or 3 years time, much as IDS was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
After canceling Marr, and now Today, what are the odds he wont appear at PMQs?
Cam must be pinching himself.
He could and should make a statement out of PMQs.
He should ask:
1. That the PM must give a straight answer to a straight question. No evasion.
2. The Mob culture must end from all sides.
The Tories and the Speaker will almost certainly refuse. Corbyn will say he will not participate then.
The idea that the shouting and jeering is hugely popular with the public is actually misplaced. The public also wants to hear a clear answer to a clear question.
The PMQ did not start with Magna Carta or 1832. It only started in the 50s. So no great tradition.
Won't work. Even when straight answers are given, oppositions don't acknowledge them (granted, they are rare), so it's an impossible demand to fulfill.
"Ed Miliband staked everything on his opening question: would the Prime Minister rule out raising VAT? Having asked it, the Labour leader sat down, confidently awaiting his opponent’s stumbling, circuitous, tellingly evasive answer. After all, there was no way Mr Cameron was going to say yes.
“Yes,” said Mr Cameron.
The look on Mr Miliband’s face. It was as if an eagle had swooped out of the sky and swiped the sandwich from his hands.”
Even those days of Miliband being torn a new one at PMQs seem like halycon days for Labour compared to now. Two months out from a GE and at at least level in the polls, Miliband upping his game. Things were looking promising. I mean, Ed Balls, next to Mili there, seems like a sensible chap and a political and intellectual heavyweight in comparison to the new shadow cabinet.
But, this is PB. The Labour politicians are only praised after they are dis-elected or dead and buried.
If Ed Balls were to return to the Commons he would be an anti-British communist threatening PB's wallets again.
"Union bosses yesterday threatened to use Jeremy Corbyn’s victory to cripple Britain by holding a wave of strikes and instigating civil unrest. The chiefs of the UK’s biggest trade unions hailed Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader and threatened to “topple the Government” using “coordinated strikes and demonstrations”."
It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.
Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.
When the SNP make Trident Renewal one of their "Material Changes of Circumstances" to trigger the Second Referendum, it is very likely Cameron will bottle it and kick Trident back into the long grass.
Yougov today had no ahead in any indyref 2 by 53-47% and over 50% wanting no referendum for at least 5 years
John Mills, Labour’s biggest private donor, said he would stop giving money to the party in the wake of Mr Corbyn’s election, and instead fund the MPs plotting to oust him.
The 3 main assets of a party are its parliamentary seats, its organisational nous, and its grassroots membership. Finances will tend to follow those with a prospect of power.
If you reach the stage where your mass membership have become a net negative, so much so that you're better off shot of them, then from the MPs' point of view they've already got the seats anyway. A Corbynified Labour organisation will likely have purged a lot of party workers, aside from all those who are already quitting and heading out into wonkland. So the organisational brains could probably be re-recruited fairly easily.
If there is an "unstoppable force vs immovable object" aspect to what's going on, then forming the New Democrats isn't an unthinkable option, and doesn't really require more MPs than a party coup would. However, it does require them to be even more totally committed and to take more of a risk, so while I don't expect it to happen, the prospect becomes more likely in the event that they all have their backs to the wall. The "600 seat redrawing", and the prospect of having to get support from local membership to find a seat, might just be enough to provoke a split. In that situation many MPs are stuffed if they stick with Labour even if they do strike first to get rid of Corbyn, unless they can get the more extreme elements of the membership to leave almost immediately.
I don't think one can just dismiss finances as a meaningless flagellum attached to the fun bits of politics. Part of the Conservatives' edge over Labour in 2015 came from their larger financial backing that enabled clever but expensive tactics like the Team 2015 bussing safe-seat volunteers to marginal constituencies, not to mention the micro-targetted real-life and Facebook ads. So cash helps and, as the unions' decision has shown, cash doesn't just follow the most obvious winner but it instead comes with conditions or at least expectations. The Tristramites would begin with £0 and approximately one trade union of any meaningful size willing to contribute to increase that fund. Labour would easily outspend the Tristramites with union backing. Why take the risk when you can wait two years for a coup, or five years for the unions to face the music and back moderates like they always used to do?
What hatchet job on Corbyn, he was overwhelmingly elected as Labour Leader yesterday? I thought that the BBC crossed the line and undermined their charter of impartiality when they showed a documentary that very clearly focused attention on one particularly Labour candidate above the others during the voting stage of the Labour contest. That Panorama programme should not have been aired until after voting had closed.
I don't think one can just dismiss finances as a meaningless flagellum attached to the fun bits of politics. Part of the Conservatives' edge over Labour in 2015 came from their larger financial backing that enabled clever but expensive tactics like the Team 2015 bussing safe-seat volunteers to marginal constituencies, not to mention the micro-targetted real-life and Facebook ads. So cash helps and, as the unions' decision has shown, cash doesn't just follow the most obvious winner but it instead comes with conditions or at least expectations. The Tristramites would begin with £0 and approximately one trade union of any meaningful size willing to contribute to increase that fund. Labour would easily outspend the Tristramites with union backing. Why take the risk when you can wait two years for a coup, or five years for the unions to face the music and back moderates like they always used to do?
I did mark it as hypothetical. It was an exercise in wry humour as much as anything else: there's been so much madness taking place these last few months, who knows what else is possible?
I agree re "why take the risk", that's why I said I wouldn't expect it to happen. But it becomes a more interesting possibility if the MPs can't wait, for some reason. Say, your local party has been taken over by the "loony left" and you believe you won't be selected to stand again. The 600 seat thing has particular importance here.
A coup provides some defence: may get some of the loonies to leave, might give you an opportunity to tighten up deselection rules or (in the event of a move to a 600 seat house) give sitting MPs some kind of "golden ticket" so they're all guaranteed a potentially winnable seat.
But this comes at a cost; taking an active role in the coup marks you as an evil neoliberal Blairofascist. What if the [de]selection rules aren't sufficiently tight to save your skin from the corbohordes once they smell the blueness in your blood? And the coup can only help clear up the HoC. If the organisational structures and rulebook have changed so that members have a lot more power, it'll be a running battle to re/de-purge them.
Well it had to be said. Twitter Mr Eugenides @Mr_Eugenides 3m3 minutes ago And to think that six months ago my Labour-supporting friends were laughing at the Liberal Democrats.
Well it had to be said. Twitter Mr Eugenides @Mr_Eugenides 3m3 minutes ago And to think that six months ago my Labour-supporting friends were laughing at the Liberal Democrats.
By my count tonight Labour has 232 seats, Liberal Democrats 8 !
So, you suggest, 60% of the Party's voices [ whether correct or not ] should be ignored ? Maybe , professional politicians can't get their head round it.
They shouldn't be ignored. They should be made to leave.
That's even harder than breaking the "union link". How on earth do you break the "membership link"?
Replace their leader in a coup with a coronation, wait for them all to eff off to the Greens or TUSC. It's already been done successfully this century, though UKIP were the lucky recipients that time.
Dave Nellist suggested that if Corbyn won, TUSC would merge into the Labour party. Can't imagine that happening at a formal level, but TUSC might just vote to disband itself and the bulk of the membership sidle across. Perhaps 500 or so - not much compared to the rest of the Corbyn surge but they are likely to be the political equivalent of persistent crabs, getting into the vital parts and rather hard to shake off.
At least Corbyn has started out so ineptly we might not be in this mess that long. Some of his soft left supporters who should've known better, but allowed themselves to buy into the frenzy and project their views on to him are already starting to think 'oh God what have we done.'
McDonnell's a massive error - he's a piece of work, and while the soft left can accept or even admire the hard left when it comes in cuddly eccentric uncle form, when it's a proper hard left thug people realise what they're being asked to defend and that it won't work out well. One almost feels sorry for the Corbynistas - they know not what they have done.
None of the top five - Corbyn, Watson, McDonnell, Burnham, Benn - has had a job outside of politics since university, as far as I can tell..... .....A list to which (if you include political journalism) you can add Abbot, De Piero, Alexander, Eagle, Powell, Dugher, Winterton.... ...So far, only Vernon Coaker (teacher), Lord Falconer (lawyer), Seema Malhotra (mgt consult) & Ian Murray (charity/SME) have ... .....had a career of any significance which was unrelated to politics, let alone in the private sector. That's remarkable.
The 3 main assets of a party are its parliamentary seats, its organisational nous, and its grassroots membership. Finances will tend to follow those with a prospect of power.
If you reach the stage where your mass membership have become a net negative, so much so that you're better off shot of them, then from the MPs' point of view they've already got the seats anyway. A Corbynified Labour organisation will likely have purged a lot of party workers, aside from all those who are already quitting and heading out into wonkland. So the organisational brains could probably be re-recruited fairly easily.
If there is an "unstoppable force vs immovable object" aspect to what's going on, then forming the New Democrats isn't an unthinkable option, and doesn't really require more MPs than a party coup would. However, it does require them to be even more totally committed and to take more of a risk, so while I don't expect it to happen, the prospect becomes more likely in the event that they all have their backs to the wall. The "600 seat redrawing", and the prospect of having to get support from local membership to find a seat, might just be enough to provoke a split. In that situation many MPs are stuffed if they stick with Labour even if they do strike first to get rid of Corbyn, unless they can get the more extreme elements of the membership to leave almost immediately.
I don't think one can just dismiss finances as a meaningless flagellum attached to the fun bits of politics. Part of the Conservatives' edge over Labour in 2015 came from their larger financial backing that enabled clever but expensive tactics like the Team 2015 bussing safe-seat volunteers to marginal constituencies, not to mention the micro-targetted real-life and Facebook ads. So cash helps and, as the unions' decision has shown, cash doesn't just follow the most obvious winner but it instead comes with conditions or at least expectations. The Tristramites would begin with £0 and approximately one trade union of any meaningful size willing to contribute to increase that fund. Labour would easily outspend the Tristramites with union backing. Why take the risk when you can wait two years for a coup, or five years for the unions to face the music and back moderates like they always used to do?
But where are a Corbynist Labour Party finances going to be without business support and with Cameron gutting the automatic union subscription? New Democrats might end up better off financially in that scenario than Labour.
Comments
Or maybe he's still trying to get hold of John woodcock, who hasn't the remotest inkling that he's about to be offered Defence, so surreal is it.
Tom Watson, next Labour leader ?
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 4m4 minutes ago
Seems this idea of rotating front bench team at #PMQs is not a runner. @angelaeagle is Shad First Sec of State so she'll stand in for Corbyn
FabianWomen'sNetwork @FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom
Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.
So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.
Goodnight.
Seriously, this is more W T F than Lucy Powell.
She's on the board of PROGRESS.
Energy and Climate change? Nationalisation of the utility companies.
YouGov/Times Scotland poll. List VI. SNP 45 (+2) Lab 20 (-4) Con 18 (+2) greens 9
The UKIP thing was different - that was a personality cult. Ideas are harder to kill, and Corbyn is just a figurehead that a lot of hopes and dreams have been pinned on by people who "want their party back" (even if they never really had it in the first place, bless the misinformed young'uns).
So who cares about partisan opinion, I'm off, you can stay here and moan all night.
'Is this the No.2 position ?
Tom Watson, next Labour leader ?
Just trying to keep Billy Bunter off the TV screen,he's very voter repellent.
Sky News
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9395ded4-5a69-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk_politics/feed//product#axzz3lfFDQB95
Tessa Jowell says she would not accept a place in JC team
In any case Nicola's too canny to paint herself into such a corner.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/34067072
Money isn't something the Conservative Party has to worry about, but every other party does.
Can't fill the rest of the roles? Too tired to carry on? Or maybe just building up more suspense...
The 3 main assets of a party are its parliamentary seats, its organisational nous, and its grassroots membership. Finances will tend to follow those with a prospect of power.
If you reach the stage where your mass membership have become a net negative, so much so that you're better off shot of them, then from the MPs' point of view they've already got the seats anyway. A Corbynified Labour organisation will likely have purged a lot of party workers, aside from all those who are already quitting and heading out into wonkland. So the organisational brains could probably be re-recruited fairly easily.
If there is an "unstoppable force vs immovable object" aspect to what's going on, then forming the New Democrats isn't an unthinkable option, and doesn't really require more MPs than a party coup would. However, it does require them to be even more totally committed and to take more of a risk, so while I don't expect it to happen, the prospect becomes more likely in the event that they all have their backs to the wall. The "600 seat redrawing", and the prospect of having to get support from local membership to find a seat, might just be enough to provoke a split. In that situation many MPs are stuffed if they stick with Labour even if they do strike first to get rid of Corbyn, unless they can get the more extreme elements of the membership to leave almost immediately.
Topless protesters at Muslim conference in Paris get kicked and pushed over:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H_3c55I8Fg
If Ed Balls were to return to the Commons he would be an anti-British communist threatening PB's wallets again.
The chiefs of the UK’s biggest trade unions hailed Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader and threatened to “topple the Government” using “coordinated strikes and demonstrations”."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11862413/Union-bosses-threaten-to-use-Jeremy-Corbyns-victory-to-cripple-UK.html
Labour are now a joke.
Icing on the cake, certain unions seem to be making noises about trying to bring down the elected government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11862413/Union-bosses-threaten-to-use-Jeremy-Corbyns-victory-to-cripple-UK.html
The phrase "civil unrest" is used.
You pleased Palmer?
Oh the Milibands (the pair), the Ballses (both of them too) or the Burnhams (all 17 different versions of him)...
John Mills, Labour’s biggest private donor, said he would stop giving money to the party in the wake of Mr Corbyn’s election, and instead fund the MPs plotting to oust him.
FIGHT!!!
Busiest Sunday night in PB history.
Great entertainment!
Truly politics is the most entertaining topic in the UK and has been since last summer.
I agree re "why take the risk", that's why I said I wouldn't expect it to happen. But it becomes a more interesting possibility if the MPs can't wait, for some reason. Say, your local party has been taken over by the "loony left" and you believe you won't be selected to stand again. The 600 seat thing has particular importance here.
A coup provides some defence: may get some of the loonies to leave, might give you an opportunity to tighten up deselection rules or (in the event of a move to a 600 seat house) give sitting MPs some kind of "golden ticket" so they're all guaranteed a potentially winnable seat.
But this comes at a cost; taking an active role in the coup marks you as an evil neoliberal Blairofascist. What if the [de]selection rules aren't sufficiently tight to save your skin from the corbohordes once they smell the blueness in your blood? And the coup can only help clear up the HoC. If the organisational structures and rulebook have changed so that members have a lot more power, it'll be a running battle to re/de-purge them.
Twitter
Mr Eugenides @Mr_Eugenides 3m3 minutes ago
And to think that six months ago my Labour-supporting friends were laughing at the Liberal Democrats.
McDonnell's a massive error - he's a piece of work, and while the soft left can accept or even admire the hard left when it comes in cuddly eccentric uncle form, when it's a proper hard left thug people realise what they're being asked to defend and that it won't work out well. One almost feels sorry for the Corbynistas - they know not what they have done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069h7tg
None of the top five - Corbyn, Watson, McDonnell, Burnham, Benn - has had a job outside of politics since university, as far as I can tell.....
.....A list to which (if you include political journalism) you can add Abbot, De Piero, Alexander, Eagle, Powell, Dugher, Winterton....
...So far, only Vernon Coaker (teacher), Lord Falconer (lawyer), Seema Malhotra (mgt consult) & Ian Murray (charity/SME) have ...
.....had a career of any significance which was unrelated to politics, let alone in the private sector. That's remarkable.
EDIT: Now deleted!