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.
Spin.. far from it. Corbyn cannot take criticism.. if you front him up, he'll explode like he has done on interviews on the television.
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.
Agree, however the hero worship of the inept Tories on here is rather worrying. Either they are benefitting from it or are just too blinkered and stupid to see how crap the Tories are , unless compared to Labour.
Mr. D, your suggestion posted at 24 minutes to the 9th hour antemeridian has merit.
I can see it now... "Mr. D, your suggestion posted at 24 minutes to the 9th hour antemeridian, on the thirtieth day of the tenth month in the year of our Lord two thousand and fifteen, has merit."
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.
Hasn't this been going on for years? In any case, individual registration wouldn't have factored into the boundary review if it had happened in the last parliament. So the Lib Dems need to take their share of the blame for their childish hissy fit.
Just checked Jess Philips on Twitter. Getting lots of horrid abuse and threats, which is absolutely not on.
That does not detract from the fact that laughing at the prospect of why so many men kill themselves is thoroughly despicable. It does, however, give her the opportunity to claim victimhood rather than admit her mirth was as misplaced as an erection at a funeral.
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:
Ah yes, the delay and consult more tactic, what a classic. I'm getting planning development flashbacks. You can guarantee some people never think there has been enough consultation, so you defer a bit and hopefully steam is let out the situation when you come back.
I suppose in fairness there's never a guarantee an emergency brake will stop you from hitting something.
From being a site dominated by Tories to one where the only alternate voices come from thread headers has almost been reached. For posters who prefer sounds other than their own echo should value articles like this one. They're becoming pretty rare on here
From being a site dominated by Tories to one where the only alternate voices come from thread headers has almost been reached. For posters who prefer sounds other than their own echo should value articles like this one. They're becoming pretty rare on here
I think there have been one or two SNPers on this site. Although for the life of me I can't remember their names!
On the boundaries, Labour if it has any sense should be organising a registration drive this month before the 1st December register is published. It shouldn't be that hard to match up the current electoral register with a list of properties to see which ones currently don't have anyone registered to vote. Plus in university constituencies doing stuff at fresher's fairs etc
Mr. D, there are many fine possibilities, you know.
Your post 20 minutes preceding the ninth hour afore the sun's zenith in the 10th month* in the Chinese Year of the Sheep could also be referred to using a classical Greek calendar.
Hmm. I could probably diminish clarity with more information [not unlike Sir Humphrey].
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.
Agree, however the hero worship of the inept Tories on here is rather worrying. Either they are benefitting from it or are just too blinkered and stupid to see how crap the Tories are , unless compared to Labour.
I couldn't agree more Mrg, some of the tories on here since May have been behaving like spoilt children talking about their holiday in Florida to kids that have just been to Pontins.
On the boundaries, Labour if it has any sense should be organising a registration drive this month before the 1st December register is published. It shouldn't be that hard to match up the current electoral register with a list of properties to see which ones currently don't have anyone registered to vote. Plus in university constituencies doing stuff at fresher's fairs etc
If the carry overs haven't responded to the nine attempts to get them to register, what makes you think a Labour activist can convince them? Most likely because they no longer live there.
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.
I'm heavily pro Ukip but I'd struggle to write a heavily pro Ukip piece right now, despite Carswell being an exemplary parliamentarian.
On the boundaries, Labour if it has any sense should be organising a registration drive this month before the 1st December register is published. It shouldn't be that hard to match up the current electoral register with a list of properties to see which ones currently don't have anyone registered to vote. Plus in university constituencies doing stuff at fresher's fairs etc
If the carry overs haven't responded to the nine attempts to get them to register, what makes you think a Labour activist can convince them? Most likely because they no longer live there.
Mr. D, there are many fine possibilities, you know.
Your post 20 minutes preceding the ninth hour afore the sun's zenith in the 10th month* in the Chinese Year of the Sheep could also be referred to using a classical Greek calendar.
Hmm. I could probably diminish clarity with more information [not unlike Sir Humphrey].
From being a site dominated by Tories to one where the only alternate voices come from thread headers has almost been reached. For posters who prefer sounds other than their own echo should value articles like this one. They're becoming pretty rare on here
It can be valued and dismissed at the same time. I appreciate the alternate view from Tory or led leaning headers but it's not hugely convincing, though it seems to capture the total dismissal of concerns in favour of fighting the real enemy approach rather well. A bold gamble that the concerns will not matter, something Osborne fans need also to be wary of, as if it works, great, but catastrophic if it doesn't, and then everyone looks silly saying 'why didn't we do anything?'
Mr. Roger, there is a clear right of centre majority here now.
However, that's partly because Labour had an unelectable lefty for a leader and then moved to a full-blown socialist, borderline communist as leader. Sensible lefties like Mr. Observer are understandably concerned, and some noisy lefties left pretty much on the night of the election.
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.
How well do you know Jeremy to make such comments? You were MPs together for thirteen years; how much interaction did you have with him during that time?
On the boundaries, Labour if it has any sense should be organising a registration drive this month before the 1st December register is published. It shouldn't be that hard to match up the current electoral register with a list of properties to see which ones currently don't have anyone registered to vote. Plus in university constituencies doing stuff at fresher's fairs etc
If the carry overs haven't responded to the nine attempts to get them to register, what makes you think a Labour activist can convince them? Most likely because they no longer live there.
I'm not talking about the carry overs but more generally. For example there must be people who have recently moved to an area and longerstanding residents who weren't on the register in the first place.
If they frame it as "New seats in parliament are going to be drawn up shortly. It is important to register even if you don't then vote as otherwise could lose its voice in parliament" then they may have some success.
On the boundaries, Labour if it has any sense should be organising a registration drive this month before the 1st December register is published. It shouldn't be that hard to match up the current electoral register with a list of properties to see which ones currently don't have anyone registered to vote. Plus in university constituencies doing stuff at fresher's fairs etc
If the carry overs haven't responded to the nine attempts to get them to register, what makes you think a Labour activist can convince them? Most likely because they no longer live there.
I'm not talking about the carry overs but more generally. For example there must be people who have recently moved to an area and longerstanding residents who weren't on the register in the first place.
If they frame it as "New seats in parliament are going to be drawn up shortly. It is important to register even if you don't then vote as otherwise could lose its voice in parliament" then they may have some success.
I'd agree with you on that. All parties should be doing it, as it would ensure that the seats are fairly distributed across the country.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
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.
I'm heavily pro Ukip but I'd struggle to write a heavily pro Ukip piece right now, despite Carswell being an exemplary parliamentarian.
Too reasoned (though I think they are due a recovery in momentum when eu fevers kicks off). I want the kind of blinkered, well replace the toriesin 2 years sort of partisan piece. But I don't think there's anyone who would write it, sadly. Greens can be good for presenting like they have massive political support when they don't, so they might be better placed for that type of piece.
In all honesty, I find most headers pretty balanced but are variably peppered with partisan flair. This one is with labour flair and pretty obviously so, others are more subtle and have different amounts and types of flair.
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.
If Labour want to make the electoral register more complete, then they should send their new army of supporters knocking on doors in Labour areas to encourage voter registration.
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.
If Labour want to make the electoral register more complete, then they should send their new army of supporters knocking on doors in Labour areas to encourage voter registration.
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.
How well do you know Jeremy to make such comments? You were MPs together for thirteen years; how much interaction did you have with him during that time?
When you open your heart to JC, you know him better than mere acquaintance or friendship can allow.
Donald Brind may be right that the Government is weaker than it looks, but with a effective majority of about 35 with the DUP, who certainly are nor Corbynistas they are stronger than they look in the HOC and than he thinks!
The tax credit defeat in the Lords won't be repeated and the message has been absorbed. None of this gets past the fact that Jeremy Corbyn was elected on an anti establishment tide and not on the briiliance of his policies! I am far from uncritical about everything the Government have done, but they are currently the only show in town.
You know the time stamps don't carry over pat midnight, so tomorrow this comment will make no sense...
That is where my brilliant suggestion comes in
Ah drat, forgot the times actually disappear. Okay, so everyone should manually write the time in their posts, so that in the off chance @Morris_Dancer 'quotes' you, it'll be easy to connect them together when going through the PB archives.
Mr. Roger, there is a clear right of centre majority here now.
However, that's partly because Labour had an unelectable lefty for a leader and then moved to a full-blown socialist, borderline communist as leader. Sensible lefties like Mr. Observer are understandably concerned, and some noisy lefties left pretty much on the night of the election.
I wasn't here then, but let me guess: the exit poll was to them as garlic is to a vampire.
Ah drat, forgot the times actually disappear. Okay, so everyone should manually write the time in their posts, so that in the off chance @Morris_Dancer 'quotes' you, it'll be easy to connect them together when going through the PB archives.
In that case, since the timestamp is being used only a 'cookie' or token, a non-recurring random set of characters would actually be better.
Ah drat, forgot the times actually disappear. Okay, so everyone should manually write the time in their posts, so that in the off chance @Morris_Dancer 'quotes' you, it'll be easy to connect them together when going through the PB archives.
In that case, since the timestamp is being used only a 'cookie' or token, a non-recurring random set of characters would actually be better.
Some message boards number the posts, so you can easily refer to them. It does cause a bit of an issue when a post gets deleted sometime after the fact, as the numbering can go all out of whack.
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.
How well do you know Jeremy to make such comments? You were MPs together for thirteen years; how much interaction did you have with him during that time?
I think Nick is a member of his constituency party.
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
Certainly ethnically diverse and not cheap to buy inside I don't
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
Mr. Roger, there is a clear right of centre majority here now.
However, that's partly because Labour had an unelectable lefty for a leader and then moved to a full-blown socialist, borderline communist as leader. Sensible lefties like Mr. Observer are understandably concerned, and some noisy lefties left pretty much on the night of the election.
I wasn't here then, but let me guess: the exit poll was to them as garlic is to a vampire.
Depended on how mocking of Tory chances they had been, and how triumphant the Tories in response. I was hugely mocking of Tory chances, I thought labour most seats was nailed on, but having not voted labour was spared partisan embarrassment, which can be hard to live down.
Mr. Quidder, at 8.55am, and here was I thinking you were singling out my posts for their wit and wisdom
My next whinge will be about the couple of people who top-post. Actually, that's not such a problem reading on Vanilla as I do, but it's a major PITA reading the main site on a mobile...
Mr. Roger, there is a clear right of centre majority here now.
However, that's partly because Labour had an unelectable lefty for a leader and then moved to a full-blown socialist, borderline communist as leader. Sensible lefties like Mr. Observer are understandably concerned, and some noisy lefties left pretty much on the night of the election.
I wasn't here then, but let me guess: the exit poll was to them as garlic is to a vampire.
Depended on how mocking of Tory chances they had been, and how triumphant the Tories in response. I was hugely mocking of Tory chances, I thought labour most seats was nailed on, but having not voted labour was spared partisan embarrassment, which can be hard to live down.
Jezza is a loon, but I don't get the support for Osborne on the Tory side. He's a man promoted above his abilities because he's a mate of Dave. He comes over as smarmy, an identikit politician. His back story isn't great, he performs nearly as badly as Ed on TV and he has a tendency to smirk.
He's been fortunate in having an opposition dedicated to Hara-Kiri so his mistakes don't matter. But leader? Do the two main parties want to make themselves unelectable ?
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
'Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?'
The only gerrymandering was in the last parliament when the Lib Dems blocked the new boundaries being implemented because it was against their party's interests.
The opposition making mistakes is to a large part down to Osborne. They got themselves stuck in a difficult position because he started with tough fiscal retrenchment before moderating it, meaning they couldn't decide whether he was going "too far, too fast" or not eliminating the deficit quickly enough. He wrongfooted them on the minimum wage. He co-opted their best ideas on national investment institutions, meaning the one sensible part of their economic plans was taken away from them. His push for a northern powerhouse has blunted any attacks on "governing for southern England". And, of course, he moved the benefits vote forward so that Labour activists could see the leading New Labourites weren't in touch with them any more.
"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."
The sort of disloyalty Nick is talking about is rather different from taking a political position. Having a private conversation with your party leader and then repeating it verbatum to the Daily Mail shows all the class of a nematode worm
Mr. Roger, there is a clear right of centre majority here now.
However, that's partly because Labour had an unelectable lefty for a leader and then moved to a full-blown socialist, borderline communist as leader. Sensible lefties like Mr. Observer are understandably concerned, and some noisy lefties left pretty much on the night of the election.
I wasn't here then, but let me guess: the exit poll was to them as garlic is to a vampire.
Depended on how mocking of Tory chances they had been, and how triumphant the Tories in response. I was hugely mocking of Tory chances, I thought labour most seats was nailed on, but having not voted labour was spared partisan embarrassment, which can be hard to live down.
Ditto - the absolute hatred, or just ability to see advantage for one side in everything, no matter what, is fascinating.
Good day everyone. Labour may well feel better to fight the real enemy rather than internal battles, but it is a risk if those internal battles are necessary, as sometimes they are.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
How well do you know Jeremy to make such comments? You were MPs together for thirteen years; how much interaction did you have with him during that time?
I think Nick is a member of his constituency party.
Yes, and we've worked together on other issues, notably animal welfare. The thing is that I've always uneasily reconciled quite left-wing opinions with a dislike of aggressive shouting and abuse - Arthur Scargill is my ultimate nightmare, and he's just an extreme example of a common type. I've always appreciated Jeremy's different approach, even when I totally disagreed with him. After I voted for the Iraq intervention, George Galloway called me a "murderer", Corbyn said he thought I was mistaken and should reconsider in the light of what's happened - which has turned out to be quite right.
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.
It's become a kind of weekly PPB for the Labour party - not sure there's an equivalent for the other parties, but I'd prefer to have none on this site. It's just boring.
'Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?'
The only gerrymandering was in the last parliament when the Lib Dems blocked the new boundaries being implemented because it was against their party's interests.
"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."
The sort of disloyalty Nick is talking about is rather different from taking a political position. Having a private conversation with your party leader and then repeating it verbatum to the Daily Mail shows all the class of a nematode worm
"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."
The sort of disloyalty Nick is talking about is rather different from taking a political position. Having a private conversation with your party leader and then repeating it verbatum to the Daily Mail shows all the class of a nematode worm
It's less classy, I'll grant that, but is not one effectively saying that anyway if you rebel against your leader over and over again? A few times is reasonable men and women may differ territory, repeatedly and it looks like open defiance and repudiation of that leader's whole approach, which is contemptuous in its own way.
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:
We'd need more than a delay. As the EFSM debacle showed, even an explicit agreement not to do something can be ignored by the EU if it's not legally binding. The EU would just wait until the time was up and then force it through.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
Correct - but isn't it the case that the Electoral commission is stuffed full of Labour and LD hacks? I don't think this affects the actual re-drawing processes but I think the tone tends to be left of centre.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
Correct - but isn't it the case that the Electoral commission is stuffed full of Labour and LD hacks?.
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:
We'd need more than a delay. As the EFSM debacle showed, even an explicit agreement not to do something can be ignored by the EU if it's not legally binding. The EU would just wait until the time was up and then force it through.
Quite. As was made clear during the Greek debacle earlier this year, the EU will talk all day about the spirit of the rules, sometimes even the letter of the rules. But when the going gets tough and the sh.. hits the fan they will do whatever they feel like doing.
Donald Brind may be right that the Government is weaker than it looks, but with a effective majority of about 35 with the DUP, who certainly are nor Corbynistas they are stronger than they look in the HOC and than he thinks!
The tax credit defeat in the Lords won't be repeated and the message has been absorbed. None of this gets past the fact that Jeremy Corbyn was elected on an anti establishment tide and not on the briiliance of his policies! I am far from uncritical about everything the Government have done, but they are currently the only show in town.
True it may be the govt is weaker than it looks, but just take a look at Labour's front bench. As you say the govts majority is liveable and it will still pursue its policies. Using the Lords and on a tide of ignorant hysteria may be clever tactics, but its poor strategy. And from what I can see Labour have cocked up at least two of its votes in the Lords already.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
Correct - but isn't it the case that the Electoral commission is stuffed full of Labour and LD hacks? I don't think this affects the actual re-drawing processes but I think the tone tends to be left of centre.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
Because then they would no longer be legitimate, if it looks like the election was stolen.
"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."
The sort of disloyalty Nick is talking about is rather different from taking a political position. Having a private conversation with your party leader and then repeating it verbatum to the Daily Mail shows all the class of a nematode worm
Danczuk's article was quite interesting and Jezza never told him to not write about it. Indeed Danczuk makes clear that his opposition to Jezza is purely political, he expresses a degree of admiration for him on a personal level.
Frank Field is very unlikely to stand again. It is surprising he stood this time. This makes him a somewhat unlikely candidate to resist deselection but very little makes sense in the Labour party these days.
The government is of course not much weaker but much stronger than it looks after the passing of the EVEL rules. It can pass pretty much whatever legislation it wants in England and Wales with or without the awkward squad.
As for the comments about McDonnell, well, it does little for the credibility of Don's views more generally that he can come out with such nonsense.
Gareth - yes, the registration drive is happening (I reported being part of it a couple of weeks ago), but it's extraordinarly difficult in cities - typically people live in blocks with dodgy answerphones and/or are out and about. If you manage to get an answer at all to one doorbell in four you're doing well. I don't think there is any doubt that the effect of the changes will be to under-represent areas with high mobility: one can debate whether that was deliberate intent or not, but objectively it will happen (and indeed has always happened to some extent, but making everyone sign up individually instead of the landlord doing it increases the phenomenon).
kle4 (for some reason the "Quote" facility isn't working for your post) - I'm a fairly recent arrival in Jeremy's seat but I wouldn't have voted to deselect him: even when we disagreed he didn't set out to damage the party, and I don't agree with imposing a single view.
The "OK, but will he restrain his acolytes" question overlooks the repeated comments he's already made attacking abuse of opponents in the party and opposing any kind of mandatory reselection. You'll never get to a situation where you can guarantree that no supporter says something you disagree with (and if you could, you really would be stalinist), but there simply isn't an appetite about most members, old or new, to institute a mass reselection of the PLP.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
Because then they would no longer be legitimate, if it looks like the election was stolen.
Indeed.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
You make him sound like Machiavelli and possibly that's his ambition, but it's not an attractive trait. If every policy is to discomfort the opposition, it's not very constructive. Dave is at times gormless, but I suspect he means well. And Jezza may even mean well in his own la-la land.
I'd prefer a man who has a few practical principles. I could vote for a Frank Field type who mixes pragmatism with a wish to achieve something other than power. But that probably makes him anathema to party politics.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
Because then they would no longer be legitimate, if it looks like the election was stolen.
Indeed.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
"Bias is a measure of who does best under the electoral system, by calculating how many seats each big party would have if they had an equal percentage share of the national vote. From Blair’s time onward, that bias has been strongly pro-Labour – over 100 seats in both 2001 and 2005, though rather reduced since. Johnston calculates it as being worth 64 seats to Labour in 2010 and expected before the election that it would be 35 seats in 2015. In fact the 2015 bias was not 35 to Labour but 59 to the Tories." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/10/labours-woes-are-far-deeper-its-leader
How well do you know Jeremy to make such comments? You were MPs together for thirteen years; how much interaction did you have with him during that time?
I think Nick is a member of his constituency party.
Yes, and we've worked together on other issues, notably animal welfare. The thing is that I've always uneasily reconciled quite left-wing opinions with a dislike of aggressive shouting and abuse - Arthur Scargill is my ultimate nightmare, and he's just an extreme example of a common type. I've always appreciated Jeremy's different approach, even when I totally disagreed with him. After I voted for the Iraq intervention, George Galloway called me a "murderer", Corbyn said he thought I was mistaken and should reconsider in the light of what's happened - which has turned out to be quite right.
Fair enough.
Although I find it hard to associate your blind-loyalist voting pattern for 13 years with your now-prominent "quite left-wing opinions"
It's a shame you didn't consider those opinions more when trudging through the lobbies ...
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
I once read somewhere that the social divisions of the Civil War have persisted to this day. Consequently some are “naturally” Roundhead and some Cavalier.
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.
How well do you know Jeremy to make such comments? You were MPs together for thirteen years; how much interaction did you have with him during that time?
I think Nick is a member of his constituency party.
Corbyn sounds quite pliable to me. There is clearly, as Martin Amis suggests, a lot of stupidity behind the pidgeon stare and I don't think it takes too much trouble to whisper the correct McDonnel/ Momentum line in his ear. What Frank Field understands is that the intention is to eat away what used to be the labour party from within. My opinion for what it is worth is that the rational left, centre and right of the party have already missed their opportunity.
Gareth - yes, the registration drive is happening (I reported being part of it a couple of weeks ago), but it's extraordinarly difficult in cities - typically people live in blocks with dodgy answerphones and/or are out and about. If you manage to get an answer at all to one doorbell in four you're doing well. I don't think there is any doubt that the effect of the changes will be to under-represent areas with high mobility: one can debate whether that was deliberate intent or not, but objectively it will happen (and indeed has always happened to some extent, but making everyone sign up individually instead of the landlord doing it increases the phenomenon).
kle4 (for some reason the "Quote" facility isn't working for your post) - I'm a fairly recent arrival in Jeremy's seat but I wouldn't have voted to deselect him: even when we disagreed he didn't set out to damage the party, and I don't agree with imposing a single view.
The "OK, but will he restrain his acolytes" question overlooks the repeated comments he's already made attacking abuse of opponents in the party and opposing any kind of mandatory reselection. You'll never get to a situation where you can guarantree that no supporter says something you disagree with (and if you could, you really would be stalinist), but there simply isn't an appetite about most members, old or new, to institute a mass reselection of the PLP.
I don't think there will be mass deselections, but I do think, and it is purely an outsider's view, that at some point the masses who voted for him will be pushing ina direction that he, on a political level, thinks should be handled differently or not at all, and that will prove problematic for him. He seems a thoroughly political animal, for all the comments of him being more honest and principled than most (which had best be true, or it will hit him harder if he looks just like the rest), and so he must be a canny operator in some respects, and nuance and tactics does not appear to be something the current enthused mass of supporters would like to see from him. That's why I think it could be problematic for him, but not necessarily disastrous, as it isn't as though they are about to march on Whitehall (well, they are, but not for the purposes of revolution)
As I mentioned last night to one or two people at the pb gathering, one of my Labour-leaning colleagues gave a description of Jeremy Corbyn which I now can't shake out of my head: "he's like Brian from Life of Brian".
Donald Brind may be right that the Government is weaker than it looks, but with a effective majority of about 35 with the DUP, who certainly are nor Corbynistas they are stronger than they look in the HOC and than he thinks!
The tax credit defeat in the Lords won't be repeated and the message has been absorbed. None of this gets past the fact that Jeremy Corbyn was elected on an anti establishment tide and not on the briiliance of his policies! I am far from uncritical about everything the Government have done, but they are currently the only show in town.
True it may be the govt is weaker than it looks, but just take a look at Labour's front bench. As you say the govts majority is liveable and it will still pursue its policies. Using the Lords and on a tide of ignorant hysteria may be clever tactics, but its poor strategy. And from what I can see Labour have cocked up at least two of its votes in the Lords already.
Morning all,
Portillo was interesting on Week In Politics last night: Lab would have been tactically better to let the tax credit thing through and then reap the rewards at the ballot box in locals in 2016. Pretty cynical way of running politics but then again it is a rough old trade.
Gareth - yes, the registration drive is happening (I reported being part of it a couple of weeks ago), but it's extraordinarly difficult in cities - typically people live in blocks with dodgy answerphones and/or are out and about. If you manage to get an answer at all to one doorbell in four you're doing well. I don't think there is any doubt that the effect of the changes will be to under-represent areas with high mobility: one can debate whether that was deliberate intent or not, but objectively it will happen (and indeed has always happened to some extent, but making everyone sign up individually instead of the landlord doing it increases the phenomenon).
kle4 (for some reason the "Quote" facility isn't working for your post) - I'm a fairly recent arrival in Jeremy's seat but I wouldn't have voted to deselect him: even when we disagreed he didn't set out to damage the party, and I don't agree with imposing a single view.
The "OK, but will he restrain his acolytes" question overlooks the repeated comments he's already made attacking abuse of opponents in the party and opposing any kind of mandatory reselection. You'll never get to a situation where you can guarantree that no supporter says something you disagree with (and if you could, you really would be stalinist), but there simply isn't an appetite about most members, old or new, to institute a mass reselection of the PLP.
It's interesting you say "mass reselection"? Do you think there will be some, or any, reselections?
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
looking at the urban dictionary definition of lawnmower, I wouldn't say that's the type of thing you should be boasting about on a public website
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
"Bias is a measure of who does best under the electoral system, by calculating how many seats each big party would have if they had an equal percentage share of the national vote. From Blair’s time onward, that bias has been strongly pro-Labour – over 100 seats in both 2001 and 2005, though rather reduced since. Johnston calculates it as being worth 64 seats to Labour in 2010 and expected before the election that it would be 35 seats in 2015. In fact the 2015 bias was not 35 to Labour but 59 to the Tories." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/10/labours-woes-are-far-deeper-its-leader
The constituency size element is structural - efficiency and third party effects are cyclical.
If the Tories really wanted to gerrymander the boundaries they'd attack the abstention effect by specifying the new boundaries should be based on turnout, not electorate.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
looking at the urban dictionary definition of lawnmower, I wouldn't say that's the type of thing you should be boasting about on a public website
As I mentioned last night to one or two people at the pb gathering, one of my Labour-leaning colleagues gave a description of Jeremy Corbyn which I now can't shake out of my head: "he's like Brian from Life of Brian".
"You are all individuals."
"Yes, we are all individuals!"
"You're all different!"
"Yes, we ARE all different!"
I had a dream last night that Corbyn had taken over as player manager of my football team, insisted on playing up front and made me play defensive midfield instead of my favoured no 10 role!
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
looking at the urban dictionary definition of lawnmower, I wouldn't say that's the type of thing you should be boasting about on a public website
Frank Field is very unlikely to stand again. It is surprising he stood this time. This makes him a somewhat unlikely candidate to resist deselection but very little makes sense in the Labour party these days.
The government is of course not much weaker but much stronger than it looks after the passing of the EVEL rules. It can pass pretty much whatever legislation it wants in England and Wales with or without the awkward squad.
As for the comments about McDonnell, well, it does little for the credibility of Don's views more generally that he can come out with such nonsense.
Indeed - English MPs now have far less effective power than they did previously. The Executive has been considerably strengthened. Fancy that.
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.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
Because then they would no longer be legitimate, if it looks like the election was stolen.
Indeed.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
At the 2015 election, the bias favoured the Conservatives. The changes were conceived when Labour benefited from a so-called bias which, as we occasionally pointed out on pb, was not really a bias at all but just differential turnout.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Comments
Corbyn is one wrong word from losing his rag.
"Mr. D, your suggestion posted at 24 minutes to the 9th hour antemeridian, on the thirtieth day of the tenth month in the year of our Lord two thousand and fifteen, has merit."
titters...
That does not detract from the fact that laughing at the prospect of why so many men kill themselves is thoroughly despicable. It does, however, give her the opportunity to claim victimhood rather than admit her mirth was as misplaced as an erection at a funeral.
I suppose in fairness there's never a guarantee an emergency brake will stop you from hitting something.
Your post 20 minutes preceding the ninth hour afore the sun's zenith in the 10th month* in the Chinese Year of the Sheep could also be referred to using a classical Greek calendar.
Hmm. I could probably diminish clarity with more information [not unlike Sir Humphrey].
Being more serious, I may add time stamps.
*Gregorian calendar
However, that's partly because Labour had an unelectable lefty for a leader and then moved to a full-blown socialist, borderline communist as leader. Sensible lefties like Mr. Observer are understandably concerned, and some noisy lefties left pretty much on the night of the election.
A better mix would be helpful.
If they frame it as "New seats in parliament are going to be drawn up shortly. It is important to register even if you don't then vote as otherwise could lose its voice in parliament" then they may have some success.
In all honesty, I find most headers pretty balanced but are variably peppered with partisan flair. This one is with labour flair and pretty obviously so, others are more subtle and have different amounts and types of flair.
To be honest, I didn't expect anyone to expect me, otherwise I would have stated that one does not simply walk to London.
And perhaps the enormo-haddock were prowling the Thames...
Edited extra bit: good point, Mr. P. I'd forgotten that (not usually on at midnight, but I should've remembered regardless).
The tax credit defeat in the Lords won't be repeated and the message has been absorbed. None of this gets past the fact that Jeremy Corbyn was elected on an anti establishment tide and not on the briiliance of his policies! I am far from uncritical about everything the Government have done, but they are currently the only show in town.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
I find the most partisan views intriguing as I don't tend to understand the vehemence.
He's been fortunate in having an opposition dedicated to Hara-Kiri so his mistakes don't matter. But leader? Do the two main parties want to make themselves unelectable ?
'Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?'
The only gerrymandering was in the last parliament when the Lib Dems blocked the new boundaries being implemented because it was against their party's interests.
There were a few that pushed 'noisy' to its limits.
One word.
"BYE"
The opposition making mistakes is to a large part down to Osborne. They got themselves stuck in a difficult position because he started with tough fiscal retrenchment before moderating it, meaning they couldn't decide whether he was going "too far, too fast" or not eliminating the deficit quickly enough. He wrongfooted them on the minimum wage. He co-opted their best ideas on national investment institutions, meaning the one sensible part of their economic plans was taken away from them. His push for a northern powerhouse has blunted any attacks on "governing for southern England". And, of course, he moved the benefits vote forward so that Labour activists could see the leading New Labourites weren't in touch with them any more.
"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."
The sort of disloyalty Nick is talking about is rather different from taking a political position. Having a private conversation with your party leader and then repeating it verbatum to the Daily Mail shows all the class of a nematode worm
Good day everyone. Labour may well feel better to fight the real enemy rather than internal battles, but it is a risk if those internal battles are necessary, as sometimes they are.
Mr. Quidder (2), top-post?
As you say the govts majority is liveable and it will still pursue its policies. Using the Lords and on a tide of ignorant hysteria may be clever tactics, but its poor strategy. And from what I can see Labour have cocked up at least two of its votes in the Lords already.
Pathetic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3288055/Corbyn-night-President-XI-boring-SIMON-DANCZUK-got-hauled-leader-MoS-columns-result-best-one-yet.html
The government is of course not much weaker but much stronger than it looks after the passing of the EVEL rules. It can pass pretty much whatever legislation it wants in England and Wales with or without the awkward squad.
As for the comments about McDonnell, well, it does little for the credibility of Don's views more generally that he can come out with such nonsense.
kle4 (for some reason the "Quote" facility isn't working for your post) - I'm a fairly recent arrival in Jeremy's seat but I wouldn't have voted to deselect him: even when we disagreed he didn't set out to damage the party, and I don't agree with imposing a single view.
The "OK, but will he restrain his acolytes" question overlooks the repeated comments he's already made attacking abuse of opponents in the party and opposing any kind of mandatory reselection. You'll never get to a situation where you can guarantree that no supporter says something you disagree with (and if you could, you really would be stalinist), but there simply isn't an appetite about most members, old or new, to institute a mass reselection of the PLP.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
You make him sound like Machiavelli and possibly that's his ambition, but it's not an attractive trait. If every policy is to discomfort the opposition, it's not very constructive. Dave is at times gormless, but I suspect he means well. And Jezza may even mean well in his own la-la land.
I'd prefer a man who has a few practical principles. I could vote for a Frank Field type who mixes pragmatism with a wish to achieve something other than power. But that probably makes him anathema to party politics.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/10/labours-woes-are-far-deeper-its-leader
Although I find it hard to associate your blind-loyalist voting pattern for 13 years with your now-prominent "quite left-wing opinions"
It's a shame you didn't consider those opinions more when trudging through the lobbies ...
God Save the Lord Protector!
What Frank Field understands is that the intention is to eat away what used to be the labour party from within. My opinion for what it is worth is that the rational left, centre and right of the party have already missed their opportunity.
"You are all individuals."
"Yes, we are all individuals!"
"You're all different!"
"Yes, we ARE all different!"
Portillo was interesting on Week In Politics last night: Lab would have been tactically better to let the tax credit thing through and then reap the rewards at the ballot box in locals in 2016. Pretty cynical way of running politics but then again it is a rough old trade.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lawnmower
twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/659888292142280705
The constituency size element is structural - efficiency and third party effects are cyclical.
If the Tories really wanted to gerrymander the boundaries they'd attack the abstention effect by specifying the new boundaries should be based on turnout, not electorate.
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects!
So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats.
We all know this. Makes me furious.