politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Frank “Houdini” Field leads the fight against MP deselectio

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Frank “Houdini” Field leads the fight against MP deselection

Labour’s veteran maverick Frank Field has put himself in the vanguard of MPs getting ready to fight deselection. There could be no better leader for those fearful about the perceived threat from Corbynistas in their constituencies. In his 36 years as MP for Birkenhead he has survived three attempts to oust him.

Read the full story here

RobD

"My hope is that he and others will shut up about deselection and concentrate on the day job of holding to account a Tory government that is weaker than it looks."

Silence, or be purged? One wonders how long until Frank Field is deselected

Danny565

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

JEO

Danny565 said:

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

Umunna and Hunt do seem to give an air of contempt for Labour activists.

JEO

The one person that I'm surprised has escaped the glance of the Jezlamists is Yvette Cooper. She was the first one to try to undermine his leadership from the get-go by announcing that she not only would not, but could not, serve under him, and encouraged other Blairites to do the same.

ThreeQuidder

Osborne has "given Labour the opportunity to show it can be an effective force at Westminster"?

Shame they look intent on throwing it away

Roger

Though no one wants the ugly face of entryism raising it's head again the unfortunate side effect of Frank Field's (self serving) campaign is that an MP like Simon Danczuk who on any reading of how an MP should behave will be protected.

JosiasJessop

" the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, a model of calm and reasonableness."

Don, you're taking the p*ss.

rcs1000

JEO said:

Danny565 said:

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

Umunna and Hunt do seem to give an air of contempt for Labour activists.

As someone with impeccable working class credentials, I would expect Hunt to be safe.

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

JEO said:

Danny565 said:

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

Umunna and Hunt do seem to give an air of contempt for Labour activists.

As someone with impeccable working class credentials, I would expect Hunt to be safe.

The regulars he drinks with down the Dog and Duck'll stand up for him.

foxinsoxuk

The new boundaries will mean reselection or the chicken run will apply to nearly all MPs. There is little utility in reselection before then, except the veiled menace of the process being ironed out. Corbyn has very little support in the parliamentary party and the threat of deselection is the one club in the bag. It is better used as a threat, as when used as a weaponit will get very messy indeed.

Frank Field is getting old, and in another 5 years may not fancy a further 5 years of sitting in opposition as a party of protest rather than government in waiting. There will be a good number of others likely to call it a day too.

Corbyn and McDonell (top trolling to call him calm and reasonable btw!) have installed their people. The objective is not to form a government, but to prevent any new "New Labour" revival. They want the purity of opposition.

JEO

Roger said:

Though no one wants the ugly face of entryism raising it's head again the unfortunate side effect of Frank Field's (self serving) campaign is that an MP like Simon Danczuk who on any reading of how an MP should behave will be protected.

It did seem very inappropriate that he published the full details of a private meeting with his party leader in the Daily Mail.

JEO

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won an outright majority , destroyed the Lib Dems, halted UKIP, and left Labour in complete disarray with the most unelectoral leader they have ever had. If that's the Tories being inept, I'd be very worried for Labour what adeptness looks like.

foxinsoxuk

JEO said:

Roger said:

Though no one wants the ugly face of entryism raising it's head again the unfortunate side effect of Frank Field's (self serving) campaign is that an MP like Simon Danczuk who on any reading of how an MP should behave will be protected.

It did seem very inappropriate that he published the full details of a private meeting with his party leader in the Daily Mail.

It was a very interesting piece. The really odd bit was that Jezza did not mention the Daily Mail or try to stop Danczuk writing for it.

SquareRoot

JEO said:

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won a general election and left Labour is complete disarray, for goodness sake.

Another piece from planet zog. Its worth the read just to see how far removed from reality Brind is. The comment about McDonnell is just ludicrous ......... and its ally not allie.

ThreeQuidder

foxinsoxuk said:

JEO said:

Roger said:

Though no one wants the ugly face of entryism raising it's head again the unfortunate side effect of Frank Field's (self serving) campaign is that an MP like Simon Danczuk who on any reading of how an MP should behave will be protected.

It did seem very inappropriate that he published the full details of a private meeting with his party leader in the Daily Mail.

It was a very interesting piece. The really odd bit was that Jezza did not mention the Daily Mail or try to stop Danczuk writing for it.

He does seem less obsessed with the evils of the media than much of the left. He was even pictured with a copy of the Sun recently...

TCPoliticalBetting

Foxinsox spot on in your analysis.
Mr Brind, I actually enjoy reading your items as it shows how desperate some are to find a silver lining in the Corbyn regime. Deselections are coming and loyalists like you are aiding the execution squads.

blackburn63

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

Plato_Says

"MPs who didn’t back Corbyn have plenty of time to earn the “personal loyalty”

Urgh.

You Will Conform

david_herdson

So when should the party have this argument, then? It is always a convenience to leaders to delay internal disagreement or dissent by calling on supporters to focus on the 'real opposition'. And so delay turns to an attempt to silence critics.

But that's obvious. The cleverer conflation in his piece - I don't believe it's an error on his part - is about"personal loyalty". Personal loyalty is not about toeing the party line(as he rightly makes clear earlier - the reason why we're distracted from him then changing his meaning of it), yet he then implies that it comes from backing the leadership's campaigns attacking the Tories. Again, that's clever (far more so than his ham-fisted eulogising of McDonell): Labour should be taking the fight to the government - but that is not how 'personal loyalty' is earned.

Personal loyalty is about being a good constituency MP and not treating their position as an entitlement. This has nothing to do with party loyalty, whic party th MP belongs to, whether they're a front- or backbencher, or much else. Good and bad constituency MPs can be found in all areas of the House.

Don is right in saying that rebels need the backing of their local activists; he iswrong to imply it can be earned by being a slave to the whip.

AlastairMeeks

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

I must have missed the opinion polling showing that.

OldKingCole

foxinsoxuk said:

The new boundaries will mean reselection or the chicken run will apply to nearly all MPs. There is little utility in reselection before then, except the veiled menace of the process being ironed out. Corbyn has very little support in the parliamentary party and the threat of deselection is the one club in the bag. It is better used as a threat, as when used as a weaponit will get very messy indeed.

Frank Field is getting old, and in another 5 years may not fancy a further 5 years of sitting in opposition as a party of protest rather than government in waiting. There will be a good number of others likely to call it a day too.

Corbyn and McDonell (top trolling to call him calm and reasonable btw!) have installed their people. The objective is not to form a government, but to prevent any new "New Labour" revival. They want the purity of opposition.

Fileld’s 73 now. The next election will be shortly before his 78th birthday. A win then would take him into his 80’s. If my experience is any guide bits start going, at least potentially nasily, wrong in the mid 70’s.

chestnut

West (Peterborough) result:
CON - 46.4% (+5.4)
LAB - 29.4% (-2.1)
UKIP - 16.4% (-3.0)
LDEM - 4.1% (-4.0)
GRN - 3.7% (+3.7)

Plato_Says

Shame Butler Woodward isn't still MP for St Helens South

I totally agree about Tristram, he's surely doomed.

Danny565 said:

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

Scott_P

@gsoh31: #Conservatives had terrible week (quite rightly) over #taxcredits debacle. Last night? Did okay in most council by-elecs, vote often up.

blackburn63

antifrank said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

I must have missed the opinion polling showing that.

Yes me too, I've yet to see a poll asking people when Cameron's luck will run out. My prediction is at the EU referendum.

blackburn63

I'm surprised there hasn't been more made of the Ukip councillor in Thanet defecting to the Conservatives this week.

Plato_Says

What I found most interesting about that article was that he thought he'd been summoned for a carpeting, then it was never mentioned.

Insiders say Comrade Corbyn doesn't do personal confrontation and changes the subject instead. This looks like a casebook example of the behaviour.

JEO said:

Roger said:

Though no one wants the ugly face of entryism raising it's head again the unfortunate side effect of Frank Field's (self serving) campaign is that an MP like Simon Danczuk who on any reading of how an MP should behave will be protected.

It did seem very inappropriate that he published the full details of a private meeting with his party leader in the Daily Mail.

RobD

blackburn63 said:

antifrank said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

I must have missed the opinion polling showing that.

Yes me too, I've yet to see a poll asking people when Cameron's luck will run out. My prediction is at the EU referendum.

Used up all his luck getting Corbyn elected

chestnut

Scott_P said:

@gsoh31: #Conservatives had terrible week (quite rightly) over #taxcredits debacle. Last night? Did okay in most council by-elecs, vote often up.

I haven't seen Congleton East but there were swings from Labour to Tory in three of the four where both parties stood.

Scott_P

blackburn63 said:

I've yet to see a poll asking people when Cameron's luck will run out. My prediction is at the EU referendum.

The harder I practise the luckier I get...

Sandpit

Morning all. Surely this article highlights to the Tories the importance of keeping the boundary reforms and reduction in MP numbers under way. Last week's Lords vote showed good progress, Cameron and Osborne will be laughing into their cornflakes this morning at the idea that this could possibly engineer five years of Labour infighting over deselections.

foxinsoxuk

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

Actually one of Cameron's better features is his loyalty to his friends. He is no fairweather friend, and has stood by a number of people being attacked by the media. His other friends will have noticed this, which perhaps explains why in nearly 10 years there has been no serious attempt to defenestrate him.

I don't think that we are going to see major splits in the Tories over Europe this time round. There are still some monomaniacs obsessed with it as an issue, but most Tories are enjoying having a majority government for the first time in decades.

david_herdson

Slightly surprised that no-one's commented on the utter hypocrisy there'd be in Corbyn or McDonnell calling for MPs to stay on message.

GarethoftheVale2

The problem Field has is that Wirral's 4 constituencies are likely to be cut to 3 in the review. Not only that but Birkenhead and Wallasey are each likely to gain a Labour leaning ward leaving a combined Wirral S/W that would be Tory (although still pretty marginal). This makes it likelier that McGovern in Wirral S will challenge him for the Birkenhead nomination.

Plato_Says

It's another of those irregular verbs:

I am a man of principle
You are a member of the awkward squad
He is disloyal

david_herdson said:

Slightly surprised that no-one's commented on the utter hypocrisy there'd be in Corbyn or McDonnell calling for MPs to stay on message.

Plato_Says

With his age, it may be the reason why Mr Field is doing this - he knows he's fighting his last battles and wants to do it with a feeling of saving his Party from itself.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

The problem Field has is that Wirral's 4 constituencies are likely to be cut to 3 in the review. Not only that but Birkenhead and Wallasey are each likely to gain a Labour leaning ward leaving a combined Wirral S/W that would be Tory (although still pretty marginal). This makes it likelier that McGovern in Wirral S will challenge him for the Birkenhead nomination.

blackburn63

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

Actually one of Cameron's better features is his loyalty to his friends. He is no fairweather friend, and has stood by a number of people being attacked by the media. His other friends will have noticed this, which perhaps explains why in nearly 10 years there has been no serious attempt to defenestrate him.

I don't think that we are going to see major splits in the Tories over Europe this time round. There are still some monomaniacs obsessed with it as an issue, but most Tories are enjoying having a majority government for the first time in decades.

Loyalty and judgement are two different things, one can easily cloud the other.

Your last sentence is succinct.

MarqueeMark

Plato_Says said:

With his age, it may be the reason why Mr Field is doing this - he knows he's fighting his last battles and wants to do it with a feeling of saving his Party from itself.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

The problem Field has is that Wirral's 4 constituencies are likely to be cut to 3 in the review. Not only that but Birkenhead and Wallasey are each likely to gain a Labour leaning ward leaving a combined Wirral S/W that would be Tory (although still pretty marginal). This makes it likelier that McGovern in Wirral S will challenge him for the Birkenhead nomination.

Especially after he collapsed at a constituency event in March:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/14/frank-field-recovering-after-collapse

DecrepitJohnL

blackburn63 said:

antifrank said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

I must have missed the opinion polling showing that.

Yes me too, I've yet to see a poll asking people when Cameron's luck will run out. My prediction is at the EU referendum.

I doubt it, and in any case he'll retire shortly afterwards. What would his luck running out look like? Losing the referendum? A split party? He's already made it clear he will brook no dissent and the only politician big enough in the country to defy him is Boris, who does not have much of a following in the parliamentary party and whose position on the EU is barely distinguishable from Cameron's (although I guess if needs must, a Eurosausage might be discovered in the fine print nearer the day).

No, if Cameron's luck does run out, it will be an issue closer to home.

SimonStClare

Morning all.

Mr Brind does Basil Fawlty - Don’t mention the purge.

SquareRoot

david_herdson said:

Slightly surprised that no-one's commented on the utter hypocrisy there'd be in Corbyn or McDonnell calling for MPs to stay on message.

I think everyone knows about Corby's previous "loyalty" to his leadership. I think several MP's have stated off the record that Corbyn will get the same loyalty as he had previously showed to his leadership... ie zero.

DecrepitJohnL

Sandpit said:

Morning all. Surely this article highlights to the Tories the importance of keeping the boundary reforms and reduction in MP numbers under way. Last week's Lords vote showed good progress, Cameron and Osborne will be laughing into their cornflakes this morning at the idea that this could possibly engineer five years of Labour infighting over deselections.

Are all Conservative MPs guaranteed reselection? If only there were 100 new Tory peerages up for grabs. Oh, wait...

RobD

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Morning all. Surely this article highlights to the Tories the importance of keeping the boundary reforms and reduction in MP numbers under way. Last week's Lords vote showed good progress, Cameron and Osborne will be laughing into their cornflakes this morning at the idea that this could possibly engineer five years of Labour infighting over deselections.

Are all Conservative MPs guaranteed reselection? If only there were 100 new Tory peerages up for grabs. Oh, wait...

Plenty of Tory hereditaries waiting in the wings

JEO

DecrepitJohnL said:

blackburn63 said:

antifrank said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

I must have missed the opinion polling showing that.

Yes me too, I've yet to see a poll asking people when Cameron's luck will run out. My prediction is at the EU referendum.

I doubt it, and in any case he'll retire shortly afterwards. What would his luck running out look like? Losing the referendum? A split party? He's already made it clear he will brook no dissent and the only politician big enough in the country to defy him is Boris, who does not have much of a following in the parliamentary party and whose position on the EU is barely distinguishable from Cameron's (although I guess if needs must, a Eurosausage might be discovered in the fine print nearer the day).

No, if Cameron's luck does run out, it will be an issue closer to home.

Even if Cameron doesn't resign immediately after the referendum, he will be a lame duck by that point. That means discipline and retribution will lose its impact: he'll have to win over MPs on the EU issue based on merit and arguments.

GarethoftheVale2

Plato_Says said:

With his age, it may be the reason why Mr Field is doing this - he knows he's fighting his last battles and wants to do it with a feeling of saving his Party from itself.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

The problem Field has is that Wirral's 4 constituencies are likely to be cut to 3 in the review. Not only that but Birkenhead and Wallasey are each likely to gain a Labour leaning ward leaving a combined Wirral S/W that would be Tory (although still pretty marginal). This makes it likelier that McGovern in Wirral S will challenge him for the Birkenhead nomination.

Actually thinking about it under the current rules Field would be OK as he can lay claim to more than 40% of the old constituency. It is only if the rules are changed that he will be in trouble.

foxinsoxuk

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

Actually one of Cameron's better features is his loyalty to his friends. He is no fairweather friend, and has stood by a number of people being attacked by the media. His other friends will have noticed this, which perhaps explains why in nearly 10 years there has been no serious attempt to defenestrate him.

I don't think that we are going to see major splits in the Tories over Europe this time round. There are still some monomaniacs obsessed with it as an issue, but most Tories are enjoying having a majority government for the first time in decades.

Loyalty and judgement are two different things, one can easily cloud the other.

Your last sentence is succinct.

His judgement does not seem too poor to me. He was criticised for installing his old chums in cabinet, particularly boy George for example. That decision seems vindicated. He kept Ashcroft at arms length and that too was vindicated. Apart from plebgate there have been very few scandals or incidents forcing ministers to resign.

Considering the often venal nature of politics in the Westminster bubble his record as a judge of people is pretty good. He famously said of the job of leader that he thought he would be pretty good at it. He seems to be right at that too.

I have only voted Tory in one GE in my life and do not anticipate doing so again, but I can see why Dave outpolls his party.

Scott_P

JEO said:

Even if Cameron doesn't resign immediately after the referendum

I thought he resigned after Coulson, Leveson, the election...

AlastairMeeks

On topic, the reason that deselection is talked about is because some close to Jeremy Corbyn have mentioned it as a tool for reshaping the Parliamentary party. Since constituencies are almost certainly going to be redrawn, MPs are naturally going to have the jitters about such talk. If the leadership want to shut it up, they must unequivocally close off the idea. They don't because they want to keep the threat of this weapon in the armoury.

DecrepitJohnL

Off-topic -- launched today: Italian whisky. Pub quizzers should note Italians spell whisky without an 'e'
http://www.puni.com

Casino_Royale

JEO said:

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won an outright majority , destroyed the Lib Dems, halted UKIP, and left Labour in complete disarray with the most unelectoral leader they have ever had. If that's the Tories being inept, I'd be very worried for Labour what adeptness looks like.

I haven't even bothered to read the thread header today.

Plato_Says

I find this a fascinating factor - I don't feel he'd be lame-duck at all. It's an issue - and if we vote Leave or Stay, there'll be a shedload of work generated by it. But he's still very popular in the Party, currently 70%+ and more popular than the Tories.

I won't feel he's been diminished as PM, and he's retiring too. Maybe it's because I happen to like/rate him that I don't see the other side too clearly - but it feels like a lot wishful thinking from those who delight in conflict.

JEO said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

blackburn63 said:

antifrank said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

I must have missed the opinion polling showing that.

Yes me too, I've yet to see a poll asking people when Cameron's luck will run out. My prediction is at the EU referendum.

I doubt it, and in any case he'll retire shortly afterwards. What would his luck running out look like? Losing the referendum? A split party? He's already made it clear he will brook no dissent and the only politician big enough in the country to defy him is Boris, who does not have much of a following in the parliamentary party and whose position on the EU is barely distinguishable from Cameron's (although I guess if needs must, a Eurosausage might be discovered in the fine print nearer the day).

No, if Cameron's luck does run out, it will be an issue closer to home.

Even if Cameron doesn't resign immediately after the referendum, he will be a lame duck by that point. That means discipline and retribution will lose its impact: he'll have to win over MPs on the EU issue based on merit and arguments.

DecrepitJohnL

Scott_P said:

JEO said:

Even if Cameron doesn't resign immediately after the referendum

I thought he resigned after Coulson, Leveson, the election...

You do know Cameron has announced he won't be going on and on and on?

Plato_Says

I got as far as *personal loyalty* and stopped.

It's so laughable as an argument that I didn't waste retina time on the rest.

Casino_Royale said:

JEO said:

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won an outright majority , destroyed the Lib Dems, halted UKIP, and left Labour in complete disarray with the most unelectoral leader they have ever had. If that's the Tories being inept, I'd be very worried for Labour what adeptness looks like.

I haven't even bothered to read the thread header today.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

The hound disapproves of this degree of precipitation.

Isn't the battle of deselection something that Corbyn's side first raised? Can hardly blame FIeld et al. for manning the walls when Corbyn's army is drawn up to the storm the city.

RobD

Plato_Says said:

I got as far as *personal loyalty* and stopped.

It's so laughable as an argument that I didn't waste retina time on the rest.

Casino_Royale said:

JEO said:

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won an outright majority , destroyed the Lib Dems, halted UKIP, and left Labour in complete disarray with the most unelectoral leader they have ever had. If that's the Tories being inept, I'd be very worried for Labour what adeptness looks like.

I haven't even bothered to read the thread header today.

But spent time reading the comments? A brave decision

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Morning all. Surely this article highlights to the Tories the importance of keeping the boundary reforms and reduction in MP numbers under way. Last week's Lords vote showed good progress, Cameron and Osborne will be laughing into their cornflakes this morning at the idea that this could possibly engineer five years of Labour infighting over deselections.

Are all Conservative MPs guaranteed reselection? If only there were 100 new Tory peerages up for grabs. Oh, wait...

I think they're expecting enough nominal new seats in the review to cover for any retirements, although in the south especially this will ironically be more difficult to achieve than before the whole region turned blue at the last election. Kicking a few of the oldies "upstairs" is of course always an option, as you say, although I would rather people didnt go directly from one house to the other.

That said, if we are to allow such things then Frank Field would be an excellent candidate, he is the sort of thorough thinker than the Lords as a revising chamber need.

Plato_Says

Ha!

I pay my Times subs to read the comments!

RobD said:

Plato_Says said:

I got as far as *personal loyalty* and stopped.

It's so laughable as an argument that I didn't waste retina time on the rest.

Casino_Royale said:

JEO said:

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won an outright majority , destroyed the Lib Dems, halted UKIP, and left Labour in complete disarray with the most unelectoral leader they have ever had. If that's the Tories being inept, I'd be very worried for Labour what adeptness looks like.

I haven't even bothered to read the thread header today.

But spent time reading the comments? A brave decision

PClipp

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

RobD

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

Plato_Says

Quite agree - I'd rather we handed out a K to sweeten being asked to retire. Lordships are a job, not a gong.

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Morning all. Surely this article highlights to the Tories the importance of keeping the boundary reforms and reduction in MP numbers under way. Last week's Lords vote showed good progress, Cameron and Osborne will be laughing into their cornflakes this morning at the idea that this could possibly engineer five years of Labour infighting over deselections.

Are all Conservative MPs guaranteed reselection? If only there were 100 new Tory peerages up for grabs. Oh, wait...

I think they're expecting enough nominal new seats in the review to cover for any retirements, although in the south especially this will ironically be more difficult to achieve than before the whole region turned blue at the last election. Kicking a few of the oldies "upstairs" is of course always an option, as you say, although I would rather people didnt go directly from one house to the other.

That said, if we are to allow such things then Frank Field would be an excellent candidate, he is the sort of thorough thinker than the Lords as a revising chamber need.

JosiasJessop

antifrank said:

On topic, the reason that deselection is talked about is because some close to Jeremy Corbyn have mentioned it as a tool for reshaping the Parliamentary party. Since constituencies are almost certainly going to be redrawn, MPs are naturally going to have the jitters about such talk. If the leadership want to shut it up, they must unequivocally close off the idea. They don't because they want to keep the threat of this weapon in the armoury.

That's the problem. If/when the constituency borders are redrawn, there will be losers. Any moderate, sane left-winger who loses out will say it is deselection by the back door, even if it is not.

The situation is made all the more dangerous by Labour's track record in having third parties interfere with selections - see Falkirk. With the incompetent and nasty Watson as deputy leader, I'd expect the Falkirk sort of interference to grow, not decrease.

Morris_Dancer

And, entirely off-topic, I really liked the second episode of The Last Kingdom. Whether due to budgetary considerations or free choice, it seems intimate rather than grand in scale, but there's a very nice early scene which has a great sense of danger without needing to go overboard. It was well done indeed.

Sandpit

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.

AlastairMeeks

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

antifrank said:

On topic, the reason that deselection is talked about is because some close to Jeremy Corbyn have mentioned it as a tool for reshaping the Parliamentary party. Since constituencies are almost certainly going to be redrawn, MPs are naturally going to have the jitters about such talk. If the leadership want to shut it up, they must unequivocally close off the idea. They don't because they want to keep the threat of this weapon in the armoury.

That's the problem. If/when the constituency borders are redrawn, there will be losers. Any moderate, sane left-winger who loses out will say it is deselection by the back door, even if it is not.

The situation is made all the more dangerous by Labour's track record in having third parties interfere with selections - see Falkirk. With the incompetent and nasty Watson as deputy leader, I'd expect the Falkirk sort of interference to grow, not decrease.

There will be fewer losers for the Tories, because they already have larger consituencies. Its the inner city ones etc that will go. The popularity of Corbynism in the suburbs does not bode well for the opposition.

There is no easy way out for Labour following a prolonged period of deliberate self harm.

RobD

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

For the purposes of the next general election it most definitely isn't, as they carry overs would have been deleted before then in any case. For elections in the interim, I don't think so. These people have been contacted numerous times telling them to register, and will continue to be contacted. At some point you have to draw a line. If they really want to vote (and exist), they will have taken action.

Edit - and the gerrymandering comment was regarding the new boundaries, not the changes to voter registration.

Second edit - actually, it will have an effect because of the drawing of the new boundaries with the current register. That's what I get for posting at 1am. I still don't believe the case that this is gerrymandering though. In the debate, one peer mentioned that of the councils with the highest proportion of carry-overs, it wasn't the case that they were all Labour areas. I think Kensington and Chelsea was second, for instance.

richardDodd

Everybody must surely realise that anything that does not suit the Labour Party is gerrymandering...

JEO

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

What criticism did the Electoral Commission make?

JEO

Plato_Says said:

I find this a fascinating factor - I don't feel he'd be lame-duck at all. It's an issue - and if we vote Leave or Stay, there'll be a shedload of work generated by it. But he's still very popular in the Party, currently 70%+ and more popular than the Tories.

I won't feel he's been diminished as PM, and he's retiring too. Maybe it's because I happen to like/rate him that I don't see the other side too clearly - but it feels like a lot wishful thinking from those who delight in conflict.

JEO said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

blackburn63 said:

antifrank said:

blackburn63 said:

Re yesterday's discussion on funding for Kid's Company this makes for interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11963880/Kids-Company-founder-Camila-Batmanghelidjh-boasts-she-blackmailed-politicians.html

Time and again Cameron displays awful judgement of people, think of Coulson and Brooks. His luck will run out before long as he's seen as a completely vacuous, unprincipled individual.

I must have missed the opinion polling showing that.

Yes me too, I've yet to see a poll asking people when Cameron's luck will run out. My prediction is at the EU referendum.

I doubt it, and in any case he'll retire shortly afterwards. What would his luck running out look like? Losing the referendum? A split party? He's already made it clear he will brook no dissent and the only politician big enough in the country to defy him is Boris, who does not have much of a following in the parliamentary party and whose position on the EU is barely distinguishable from Cameron's (although I guess if needs must, a Eurosausage might be discovered in the fine print nearer the day).

No, if Cameron's luck does run out, it will be an issue closer to home.

Even if Cameron doesn't resign immediately after the referendum, he will be a lame duck by that point. That means discipline and retribution will lose its impact: he'll have to win over MPs on the EU issue based on merit and arguments.

I still like him, on net, despite him going down in my estimation yesterday. His positive opinion in the party will certainly help him persuade people. But my point is that he can't hang future threats over people's heads as he apparently did over purdah.

And I am the furthest person from delighting in conflict. I want a united party, and both wings of the party need to treat each other with respect for that to happen.

Plato_Says

Any chance of Diane losing hers?

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

antifrank said:

On topic, the reason that deselection is talked about is because some close to Jeremy Corbyn have mentioned it as a tool for reshaping the Parliamentary party. Since constituencies are almost certainly going to be redrawn, MPs are naturally going to have the jitters about such talk. If the leadership want to shut it up, they must unequivocally close off the idea. They don't because they want to keep the threat of this weapon in the armoury.

That's the problem. If/when the constituency borders are redrawn, there will be losers. Any moderate, sane left-winger who loses out will say it is deselection by the back door, even if it is not.

The situation is made all the more dangerous by Labour's track record in having third parties interfere with selections - see Falkirk. With the incompetent and nasty Watson as deputy leader, I'd expect the Falkirk sort of interference to grow, not decrease.

There will be fewer losers for the Tories, because they already have larger consituencies. Its the inner city ones etc that will go. The popularity of Corbynism in the suburbs does not bode well for the opposition.

There is no easy way out for Labour following a prolonged period of deliberate self harm.

ThreeQuidder

RobD said:

Plato_Says said:

I got as far as *personal loyalty* and stopped.

It's so laughable as an argument that I didn't waste retina time on the rest.

Casino_Royale said:

JEO said:

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won an outright majority , destroyed the Lib Dems, halted UKIP, and left Labour in complete disarray with the most unelectoral leader they have ever had. If that's the Tories being inept, I'd be very worried for Labour what adeptness looks like.

I haven't even bothered to read the thread header today.

But spent time reading the comments? A brave decision

This is the only site I know where BTL rivals and sometimes exceeds the headers for readability.

ThreeQuidder

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

And, if it's not seen as gerrymandering, it's counterproductive.

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

What criticism did the Electoral Commission make?

The Electoral Commission did not want unverified names on the register to be deleted until December 2016, preferring to focus for now on getting the most complete record possible rather than the most accurate record possible. That would have been too late for the purposes of setting constituency boundaries. Since the unverified entries are disproportionately in Labour areas at present, the government choosing to bring forward the date of deletion suits the Conservatives.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Quidders, BTL? Is this some sort of sandwich reference?

HYUFD

Danny565 said:

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

Chuka increased his majority in Streatham in May with a well above average swing. If any moves were made against him he could also fight a by election and win it comfortably

NickPalmer

ThreeQuidder said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JEO said:

Roger said:

Though no one wants the ugly face of entryism raising it's head again the unfortunate side effect of Frank Field's (self serving) campaign is that an MP like Simon Danczuk who on any reading of how an MP should behave will be protected.

It did seem very inappropriate that he published the full details of a private meeting with his party leader in the Daily Mail.

It was a very interesting piece. The really odd bit was that Jezza did not mention the Daily Mail or try to stop Danczuk writing for it.

He does seem less obsessed with the evils of the media than much of the left. He was even pictured with a copy of the Sun recently...

Jeremy actually does believe in people saying what they think, even if it's a repeated personal criticism of him. I'm less forgiving: I would not vote to reselect a Labour MP who routinely attacks the party under both current and past leadership in the Daily Mail, including the use of a private conversation. That is IMO different in nature from simply disagreeing about Trident or Syria.

Jeremy's response to criticism, however, is to want to discuss it, and perhaps persuade people that they're partly wrong. It doesn't occur to him to say "and now shut up, dammit". That commitment to honesty is a rare and valuable quality, not at all traditional among anyone in politics with strong views. He's really a better man than most of us in that respect, left or right.

Plato_Says

Hasn't Streatham become quite posh? I'd have thought Chukka was a good local fit.

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

Chuka increased his majority in Streatham in May with a well above average swing. If any moves were made against him he could also fight a by election and win it comfortably

Pulpstar

rcs1000 said:

JEO said:

Danny565 said:

I think Frank will be safe. Although I don't know too many people in the Birkenhead CLP, in Merseyside generally he's well-regarded by Labour activists, even left-wing ones, because of the effort he's put into the local area.

It will be people like Chuka and Tristram who will be in danger, since they by all accounts really do just view being MPs as a stepping stone to a better career and haven't built up personal loyalty to compensate for political disagreements.

Umunna and Hunt do seem to give an air of contempt for Labour activists.

As someone with impeccable working class credentials, I would expect Hunt to be safe.

https://anarchistmedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/tristram-poster.pdf chortle.

malcolmg

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Foxinsox spot on in your analysis.
Mr Brind, I actually enjoy reading your items as it shows how desperate some are to find a silver lining in the Corbyn regime. Deselections are coming and loyalists like you are aiding the execution squads.

There are as many desperate Tories on here trying to pretend the Tories are invincible, instead of just scraping a majority against a bunch of numpties. They kid themselves if they think they are popular , they are the least hated at the minute and any small improvement in Labour will sweep them away. Another 4 years of robbing the poor and enriching their chums whilst beggaring the middle will make their slender lead disappear.

JEO

Apparently the idea that parliament should discuss the men who have disproportionately committed suicide, the good fathers that don't have access to their children, or the young black boys that struggle at school is something really funny to Labour MPs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11962537/Whats-so-funny-about-a-mens-rights-debate.html

MarqueeMark

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

What criticism did the Electoral Commission make?

The Electoral Commission did not want unverified names on the register to be deleted until December 2016, preferring to focus for now on getting the most complete record possible rather than the most accurate record possible. That would have been too late for the purposes of setting constituency boundaries. Since the unverified entries are disproportionately in Labour areas at present, the government choosing to bring forward the date of deletion suits the Conservatives.

Hard to see much mud sticking when the Govt. is being accused of wanting the most accurate record possible rather than, er, the the most complete record possible.

malcolmg

OldKingCole said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The new boundaries will mean reselection or the chicken run will apply to nearly all MPs. There is little utility in reselection before then, except the veiled menace of the process being ironed out. Corbyn has very little support in the parliamentary party and the threat of deselection is the one club in the bag. It is better used as a threat, as when used as a weaponit will get very messy indeed.

Frank Field is getting old, and in another 5 years may not fancy a further 5 years of sitting in opposition as a party of protest rather than government in waiting. There will be a good number of others likely to call it a day too.

Corbyn and McDonell (top trolling to call him calm and reasonable btw!) have installed their people. The objective is not to form a government, but to prevent any new "New Labour" revival. They want the purity of opposition.

Fileld’s 73 now. The next election will be shortly before his 78th birthday. A win then would take him into his 80’s. If my experience is any guide bits start going, at least potentially nasily, wrong in the mid 70’s.

He is long past it and needs to leave the trough and let in someone who can try to change things. Invisible other than when he is whinging about possibly being deselected. Only interested in his own pocket.

Plato_Says

Friday quiz time: How well do you know the House of Lords and all its weirdness https://t.co/nWejI3FGA5 https://t.co/xZQHhIUWvJ

MarqueeMark

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Foxinsox spot on in your analysis.
Mr Brind, I actually enjoy reading your items as it shows how desperate some are to find a silver lining in the Corbyn regime. Deselections are coming and loyalists like you are aiding the execution squads.

There are as many desperate Tories on here trying to pretend the Tories are invincible, instead of just scraping a majority against a bunch of numpties.

Unusually harsh on the SNP, Malc.....

RobD

MarqueeMark said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

What criticism did the Electoral Commission make?

The Electoral Commission did not want unverified names on the register to be deleted until December 2016, preferring to focus for now on getting the most complete record possible rather than the most accurate record possible. That would have been too late for the purposes of setting constituency boundaries. Since the unverified entries are disproportionately in Labour areas at present, the government choosing to bring forward the date of deletion suits the Conservatives.

Hard to see much mud sticking when the Govt. is being accused of wanting the most accurate record possible rather than, er, the the most complete record possible.

You'd have though after two visits and numerous letters that the carry overs that are still resident in the address on the register would be encouraged to sign up. It's more than likely that the vast majority of the carry overs simply are no longer resident at their registered address.

RobD

Plato_Says said:

Friday quiz time: How well do you know the House of Lords and all its weirdness https://t.co/nWejI3FGA5 https://t.co/xZQHhIUWvJ

8/10. No peerage for me yet.

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

What criticism did the Electoral Commission make?

The Electoral Commission did not want unverified names on the register to be deleted until December 2016, preferring to focus for now on getting the most complete record possible rather than the most accurate record possible. That would have been too late for the purposes of setting constituency boundaries. Since the unverified entries are disproportionately in Labour areas at present, the government choosing to bring forward the date of deletion suits the Conservatives.

Will Zac be getting the compensation for Heathrow he deserves ?

blackburn63

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Foxinsox spot on in your analysis.
Mr Brind, I actually enjoy reading your items as it shows how desperate some are to find a silver lining in the Corbyn regime. Deselections are coming and loyalists like you are aiding the execution squads.

There are as many desperate Tories on here trying to pretend the Tories are invincible, instead of just scraping a majority against a bunch of numpties. They kid themselves if they think they are popular , they are the least hated at the minute and any small improvement in Labour will sweep them away. Another 4 years of robbing the poor and enriching their chums whilst beggaring the middle will make their slender lead disappear.

You're partly right but the opposition is so dire we're stuck with them for 9 years at least.

That doesn't mean to say we shouldn't point out how dreadful they are. Osborne's first big test in this parliament was tax credits and he failed woefully.

MarqueeMark

ThreeQuidder said:

RobD said:

Plato_Says said:

I got as far as *personal loyalty* and stopped.

It's so laughable as an argument that I didn't waste retina time on the rest.

Casino_Royale said:

JEO said:

Also, the continuous stuff about George Osborne's "arrogance and tactical ineptitude" and John McDonnell's "model of calm and reasonableness" is just cementing the reputation of Brind's columns as partisan hackery pieces. Osborne's tactical ineptitude has just won an outright majority , destroyed the Lib Dems, halted UKIP, and left Labour in complete disarray with the most unelectoral leader they have ever had. If that's the Tories being inept, I'd be very worried for Labour what adeptness looks like.

I haven't even bothered to read the thread header today.

But spent time reading the comments? A brave decision

This is the only site I know where BTL rivals and sometimes exceeds the headers for readability.

Nailed on with a Brind header...!

AlastairMeeks

MarqueeMark said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

What criticism did the Electoral Commission make?

The Electoral Commission did not want unverified names on the register to be deleted until December 2016, preferring to focus for now on getting the most complete record possible rather than the most accurate record possible. That would have been too late for the purposes of setting constituency boundaries. Since the unverified entries are disproportionately in Labour areas at present, the government choosing to bring forward the date of deletion suits the Conservatives.

Hard to see much mud sticking when the Govt. is being accused of wanting the most accurate record possible rather than, er, the the most complete record possible.

Mud won't stick. But the electoral register is demonstrably far from complete by a far greater degree than it is inaccurate at present.

Anyway, the remedy for Labour is obvious as hell.

kle4

NickPalmer said:

ThreeQuidder said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JEO said:

Roger said:

Though no one wants the ugly face of entryism raising it's head again the unfortunate side effect of Frank Field's (self serving) campaign is that an MP like Simon Danczuk who on any reading of how an MP should behave will be protected.

It did seem very inappropriate that he published the full details of a private meeting with his party leader in the Daily Mail.

It was a very interesting piece. The really odd bit was that Jezza did not mention the Daily Mail or try to stop Danczuk writing for it.

He does seem less obsessed with the evils of the media than much of the left. He was even pictured with a copy of the Sun recently...

Jeremy actually does believe in people saying what they think, even if it's a repeated personal criticism of him. I'm less forgiving: I would not vote to reselect a Labour MP who routinely attacks the party under both current and past leadership in the Daily Mail, including the use of a private conversation. That is IMO different in nature from simply disagreeing about Trident or Syria.

Jeremy's response to criticism, however, is to want to discuss it, and perhaps persuade people that they're partly wrong. It doesn't occur to him to say "and now shut up, dammit". That commitment to honesty is a rare and valuable quality, not at all traditional among anyone in politics with strong views. He's really a better man than most of us in that respect, left or right.

I don't get it - so you would not have reselected Corbyn in his constituency all these years? His actions have been more defiant than attacking the party with a, gasp, newspaper column after all. He's taken concrete steps to repeatedly defeat his own sides on votes, not merely agitated in the press.

I still think the problem is not strictly speaking Corbyn but people he enables will do. They may contemplate things he would not, but will he stop them? We know for a fact some of them will say viciously personal things and propose things you say Corbyn himself never would.

MarqueeMark

RobD said:

MarqueeMark said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

antifrank said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.

Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?

If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.

Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.

Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.

On this occasion it is heading in the direction of gerrymandering. The government went against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, apparently for party advantage.

What criticism did the Electoral Commission make?

The Electoral Commission did not want unverified names on the register to be deleted until December 2016, preferring to focus for now on getting the most complete record possible rather than the most accurate record possible. That would have been too late for the purposes of setting constituency boundaries. Since the unverified entries are disproportionately in Labour areas at present, the government choosing to bring forward the date of deletion suits the Conservatives.

Hard to see much mud sticking when the Govt. is being accused of wanting the most accurate record possible rather than, er, the the most complete record possible.

You'd have though after two visits and numerous letters that the carry overs that are still resident in the address on the register would be encouraged to sign up. It's more than likely that the vast majority of the carry overs simply are no longer resident at their registered address.

And a rather feeble argument for stopping the revised constituency boundaries being created. Those who subsequently get added to the register are going to represent no more than the rounding error on the rounding error of c.80,000 voters.

ThreeQuidder

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Quidders, BTL? Is this some sort of sandwich reference?

Below the line. The comments section. What Dave Gorman calls "the bottom half of the Internet".

Incidentally, Mr Dancer: does the Quote function not work for you? I've spent most of the last two weeks reading the comments a couple of days behind real time, and it's often very difficult to figure out what your replies refer to.

runnymede

Another dreadful partisan article.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. JEO, thanks for linking to that piece.

It's an a shocking and outrageous thing to laugh at the prospect of discussing why so many men commit suicide. The media ought to leap on this.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Quidder, never used the quotation function, though I do try to refer to the individual to whom I'm replying.

Never considered that someone might be reading my posts a few days later, to be honest.

MP_SE

The front page of the FT mentioned an emergency brake for decisions impacting on UK financial services. According to CNBC/Reuters it will not be a veto but just a right to delay the vote and hold further consultations:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/30/reuters-america-britain-seeks-emergency-brake-for-non-euro-countries-ft.html

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Quidder, never used the quotation function, though I do try to refer to the individual to whom I'm replying.

Never considered that someone might be reading my posts a few days later, to be honest.

In keeping with your style, you could opt for:

Mr/Mrs (Dr, Lord etc.) X at 1:35am, ....

kle4

Very partisan piece, but it's good to see how labour are thinking. Id be interested in a heavily pro UKIP piece, or even a green convinced they will replace labour.

Plato_Says

We'd get more sense from a @JohnLoony piece about OMRLP winning power.

kle4 said:

Very partisan piece, but it's good to see how labour are thinking. Id be interested in a heavily pro UKIP piece, or even a green convinced they will replace labour.