Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
A long time back, Butler and King did research that suggested that I think 5-10% of voters will vote against party inclination if they really like/dislike a candidate, and my guess is that it's much the same now.
But I'd guess that it's possible to make it more common, and it's our habit of thinking in party terms that gets in the way. The "Conservatives for Palmer" effort in 2010 was small in numbers (a few dozen people, mostly just putting up posters in their gardens), mostly linked to an evangelical church who liked what they felt were honest answers to a survey that they sent to candidates, but the idea was to give a larger number of Tory voters the idea that it was an option worth considering. However, some local Labour people felt distinctly uncomfortable with it, and only went along with it as the seat was clearly at risk.
I think it worked up to a point - the swing in 2010 was much lower than average. By 2015 I'd been away for years and a third of the electorate had changed, so the personal vote had largely evaporated.
Yes, it's perfectly possible to construct a system where you might have kept your seat in 2010 even if Labour, in aggregate, had won fewer.
It seems bonkers that a useless slob might land a seat for life, whereas a brilliant contribution might be cut off by a boundary commissioner's pen, or having the misfortune to represent a wholly artificial "marginal" creation.
Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?
How is Rubio still the favourite, when there's like NO state where he's ahead in the polls??
Beats me it looks like he will lose all four of the February states to either Trump or Cruz, he may well end up the GOP Andy Burnham, perhaps the best candidate for the general but steamrollered by a populist ideologue!
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
But it's crap. If it were true, how come only 19% can name their MP?
They vote for Cameron/Tories, etc, and whoever is on the closed list of one in a demographically advantageous constituency gets elected by the coattails effect [well 90% of the time].
People can spend literally their whole lives casting meaningless ballots, which might only become meaningful if they choose to move, or the boundary commissioners latch on to some unusual squiggle.
That is outrageous.
Names are published on the ballot papers for each constituency.
People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.
And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...
Normally politics is very quiet during the Christmas period. Jez is ruining the Christmas of many political journalists and political watchers. The Git.
Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?
It is 4th I believe after Iowa, NH and SC and the last state before Super Tuesday
Many commentators are not calling it Super Tuesday any more. It's now the S.E.C. Primary because it's mainly states which have collegiate teams in the South Eastern Conference, plus VT and MA, plus a couple of caucus states.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency.
People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.
It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
But it's crap. If it were true, how come only 19% can name their MP?
They vote for Cameron/Tories, etc, and whoever is on the closed list of one in a demographically advantageous constituency gets elected by the coattails effect [well 90% of the time].
People can spend literally their whole lives casting meaningless ballots, which might only become meaningful if they choose to move, or the boundary commissioners latch on to some unusual squiggle.
That is outrageous.
Names are published on the ballot papers for each constituency.
People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.
And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...
Independents by definition have no brand or logo.
Maybe that's why they rarely (if ever) get elected...
Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?
The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.
ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!
Never knew that. The wiki article is interesting and the link seems quite strangely set up as if clergy of the Church in Wales are part of the Church of England but clergy of the Church of England are not part of the Church in Wales.
However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.
You are getting muddled between the Anglican Communion (which is headed by ++Cantab in his capacity as the senior Anglican Bishop in the world) and the Church of England, which is headed by ++Cantab in his capacity as the senior Bishop of the Province of Canterbury.
The CofE is English. The Anglican Communion (often wrongly called the Anglican Church) is not.
And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.
Good luck Labour, you will need it.
The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.
If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.
Odd. Do they really think they can do it?
AntifrankAlastair Meeks explained it a few months ago
Jeremy Corbyn has been lucky once, surfing a wave of insurgency that no one had guessed was brewing. He is looking to make Labour a hard left party off the back of that luck and has every chance of succeeding. And then the hard left can wait, making their case until circumstances mean that the public look elsewhere from the Conservatives and, they hope, to them, whether that be in 2020, 2025 or 2030. Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck.
And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.
Good luck Labour, you will need it.
The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.
If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.
Odd. Do they really think they can do it?
What stress? Militant is doing what Militant likes best and Corbyn is still turning up at STW social events etc. They're doing what they've always done only now they've got real trains to play with. Plus Oldham will have convinced them that there are enough people who will vote for the Labour brand regardless of how many IS loving IRA supporting Trotskyist loons are in charge.
And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.
Good luck Labour, you will need it.
The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.
If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.
Odd. Do they really think they can do it?
AntifrankAlastair Meeks explained it a few months ago
Jeremy Corbyn has been lucky once, surfing a wave of insurgency that no one had guessed was brewing. He is looking to make Labour a hard left party off the back of that luck and has every chance of succeeding. And then the hard left can wait, making their case until circumstances mean that the public look elsewhere from the Conservatives and, they hope, to them, whether that be in 2020, 2025 or 2030. Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck.
And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.
Good luck Labour, you will need it.
The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.
If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.
Odd. Do they really think they can do it?
Yes, I think they do.
I think they think they can batten onto the Labour brand and with luck scrape into power at some point. And then they are home free.
I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)
Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.
It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.
I worked in a law centre in North Ken in the early 80's and many of my clients were fatherless black kids, in and out of care, with neglectful families and with more knowledge of their social worker than of their actual father. They fell into gangs, out of school, into petty and not so petty crime and felt aggrieved at lots of things. It did not take much as a group to get them rioting, however charming they could be on an individual level. They were let down. They thought they were let down by the system but in truth those who had let them down years before were their own parents who brought children into the world and could not or would not stick around consistently to parent their children properly.
Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.
Good luck Labour, you will need it.
The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.
If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.
Odd. Do they really think they can do it?
AntifrankAlastair Meeks explained it a few months ago
Jeremy Corbyn has been lucky once, surfing a wave of insurgency that no one had guessed was brewing. He is looking to make Labour a hard left party off the back of that luck and has every chance of succeeding. And then the hard left can wait, making their case until circumstances mean that the public look elsewhere from the Conservatives and, they hope, to them, whether that be in 2020, 2025 or 2030. Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck.
That is why I would, in all sincerity, support a military coup if corbyn took power. I believe he is a democrat, albeit a degraded and perverse variety thereof, But i do not believe the same of his "acolytes"
We may be exiting the era of liberal democracy. It's quite possible. But I'm prepared to physically fight for it, if necessary, which may necessitate it's temporary suspension, as during war.
We didn't suspend it during WW2. I think we can survive wan*ers like Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne.
Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
This is not so much re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic but more like washing the flag and polishing the portholes.
Who passes for a 'senior source' in the Labour Party these days?
Not wishing to be controversial but isn't Maria Eagles a woman, and isn't Defence (and First Secretary of State) a topjob?
Yes she is and yes it is but she does not agree with Jeremy and that is the acid test. Burnham has done a good job because he has done nothing at all and has not opened his mouth.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
Really?
When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:
Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.
People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.
And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.
Good luck Labour, you will need it.
The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.
If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.
Odd. Do they really think they can do it?
AntifrankAlastair Meeks explained it a few months ago
Jeremy Corbyn has been lucky once, surfing a wave of insurgency that no one had guessed was brewing. He is looking to make Labour a hard left party off the back of that luck and has every chance of succeeding. And then the hard left can wait, making their case until circumstances mean that the public look elsewhere from the Conservatives and, they hope, to them, whether that be in 2020, 2025 or 2030. Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck.
That is why I would, in all sincerity, support a military coup if corbyn took power. I believe he is a democrat, albeit a degraded and perverse variety thereof, But i do not believe the same of his "acolytes"
We may be exiting the era of liberal democracy. It's quite possible. But I'm prepared to physically fight for it, if necessary, which may necessitate it's temporary suspension, as during war.
We didn't suspend it during WW2. I think we can survive wan*ers like Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne.
Won't know until it happens. But it won't. One hopes.
One hopes. If it looked at all likely the wall of money and people fleeing the country before the election would be quite something.
People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.
And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...
Independents by definition have no brand or logo.
There are four independents in the House of Commons, all four of them were first elected on a party ticket. The last time any constituency returned an independent who first stood as an independent was 1997 and that was a very, very unique set of circumstances.
There are no metrics to suggest people vote for candidates. None. Every metric we have absolutely and definitely shows that the electorate votes for parties.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
Really?
When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:
Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.
People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.
Mike specifically swapped his vote to try and make sure Vince Cable didn't get booted. Not any Lib Dem, Vince Cable specifically iirc. If that's not voting for a candidate then I'm not sure what is.
Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
This is not so much re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic but more like washing the flag and polishing the portholes.
Who passes for a 'senior source' in the Labour Party these days?
Not wishing to be controversial but isn't Maria Eagles a woman, and isn't Defence (and First Secretary of State) a topjob?
Yes she is and yes it is but she does not agree with Jeremy and that is the acid test. Burnham has done a good job because he has done nothing at all and has not opened his mouth.
Thanks for that. I should add my remarks were somewhat rhetorical.
Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
Really?
When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:
Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.
People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.
What is risible is your basic understanding of everything from the electoral system to the basic makeup of the countries of the British Isles. I am wondering if there is any subject on which you cannot display abject ignorance.
I'll make this fast 'cos OGH doesn't like me talking about film grosses, but some of you may remember me saying that Star Wars VII had to gross over $1.5bill worldwide to justify Disney's $4bill purchase of the franchise? It just passed $1bill globally after eleven days and will presumably beat Avatar's all-time record of $2.7bill by the end of its run. Holy sheeeet...
People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.
And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...
Independents by definition have no brand or logo.
There are four independents in the House of Commons, all four of them were first elected on a party ticket. The last time any constituency returned an independent who first stood as an independent was 1997 and that was a very, very unique set of circumstances.
There are no metrics to suggest people vote for candidates. None. Every metric we have absolutely and definitely shows that the electorate votes for parties.
People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.
And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...
Independents by definition have no brand or logo.
There are four independents in the House of Commons, all four of them were first elected on a party ticket. The last time any constituency returned an independent who first stood as an independent was 1997 and that was a very, very unique set of circumstances.
There are no metrics to suggest people vote for candidates. None. Every metric we have absolutely and definitely shows that the electorate votes for parties.
Quite. If it were otherwise, if the world's nicest Tory stood in Liverpool, we should watch the contest with interest. Likewise for the most sensible Socialist in Surrey.
I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)
Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.
It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.
I worked in a law centre in North Ken in the early 80's and many of my clients were fatherless black kids, in and out of care, with neglectful families and with more knowledge of their social worker than of their actual father. They fell into gangs, out of school, into petty and not so petty crime and felt aggrieved at lots of things. It did not take much as a group to get them rioting, however charming they could be on an individual level. They were let down. They thought they were let down by the system but in truth those who had let them down years before were their own parents who brought children into the world and could not or would not stick around consistently to parent their children properly.
That's the Republican view here too. The Democrats are less inclined to accept it (you can't say bad things about black people - it's racist) and want more social spending and many want a return to affirmative action. Classic identity politics on their part as it's one of their constituencies.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
Really?
When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:
Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.
People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.
Mike specifically swapped his vote to try and make sure Vince Cable didn't get booted. Not any Lib Dem, Vince Cable specifically iirc. If that's not voting for a candidate then I'm not sure what is.
And the Liberal candidate in Luton (is that right, this is from memory) was utterly irrelevant. If I remember the discussion, the offer was for ANY Liberal candidate in a Liberal marginal, not Vince Cable.
Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.
Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott
Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
This is not so much re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic but more like washing the flag and polishing the portholes.
Who passes for a 'senior source' in the Labour Party these days?
Not wishing to be controversial but isn't Maria Eagles a woman, and isn't Defence (and First Secretary of State) a topjob?
It's quite senior but not as high as leader, shadow chancellor or shadow home or foreign sec.
I was not counting 'the leader' as one of the top 4 jobs. The leader is 'the' top job and below him are other jobs, and leading them are the top 4. I hope it is appreciated that I am only being half serious about a demi important issue, but claiming he wants Abbott as Shadow Foreign Secretary because he want one of the top 4 jobs for a woman is a load of corbynite cobblers.
Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.
As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.
Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!
Really?
When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:
Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.
People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.
Mike specifically swapped his vote to try and make sure Vince Cable didn't get booted. Not any Lib Dem, Vince Cable specifically iirc. If that's not voting for a candidate then I'm not sure what is.
And the Liberal candidate in Luton (is that right, this is from memory) was utterly irrelevant. If I remember the discussion, the offer was for ANY Liberal candidate in a Liberal marginal, not Vince Cable.
You're undermined by your own argument.
You care so little about party labels that you consistently get them wrong.
I'll make this fast 'cos OGH doesn't like me talking about film grosses, but some of you may remember me saying that Star Wars VII had to gross over $1.5bill worldwide to justify Disney's $4bill purchase of the franchise? It just passed $1bill globally after eleven days and will presumably beat Avatar's all-time record of $2.7bill by the end of its run. Holy sheeeet...
I, personally, think it will beat Avatar. But I have also read some reasonably well argued reasons why it won't. Avatar was (like Titanic) a very resilient film which didn't follow the normal box office patterns. Some commentators like the usually reliable John Campea still think it;s an outside bet that Episode 7 will make it.
It is likely to face a backlash (albeit weaker than Phantom Menace) and once the fanbois and fangrrls stop watching it every couple of days it could fall fast.
Avatar was genuinely something no-one had ever seen before, which I think helped it hugely. Episode 7 is a remake, pretty much everyone has seen it before, scene for scene.
Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?
It is 4th I believe after Iowa, NH and SC and the last state before Super Tuesday
Many commentators are not calling it Super Tuesday any more. It's now the S.E.C. Primary because it's mainly states which have collegiate teams in the South Eastern Conference, plus VT and MA, plus a couple of caucus states.
Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?
It is 4th I believe after Iowa, NH and SC and the last state before Super Tuesday
Many commentators are not calling it Super Tuesday any more. It's now the S.E.C. Primary because it's mainly states which have collegiate teams in the South Eastern Conference, plus VT and MA, plus a couple of caucus states.
I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)
Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.
It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.
That's the Republican view here too. The Democrats are less inclined to accept it (you can't say bad things about black people - it's racist) and want more social spending and many want a return to affirmative action. Classic identity politics on their part as it's one of their constituencies.
I said it because it was based on my own limited observation. It was not intended as a party political point. It occurred to me then what an advantage I had in having two firm but loving parents. The youths - not much younger than me - were not bad kids, not untalented but largely uneducated and unparented and left to fend for themselves at 16 or so. Add to that all sorts of other issues: racism, a lack of opportunities particularly for those with poor education and a criminal record, a recession etc and no wonder rioting ensued. But there was certainly a lack of morality on the part of the parents, the adults who failed in their most basic duty to their children, in the same way that happens to some white kids. We do no-one any favours by pretending that how children are brought up when young does not affect their chances later. A baby is for life, not just for Xmas. Family breakdown is the single most important risk factor for child abuse. We obsess about the latter but refuse to make the connection with our own actions or inactions as adults. It's no bloody use getting soppy about children and then refusing to accept that wanting to do the best for them involves making some sacrifices and putting some restraints on our own behaviour as adults and parents.
Sorry to sound so moralistic about it but sometimes moral judgments need to be made and when those who are harmed are the vulnerable then it's about bloody time we made some moral judgments instead of asking for stupid pretend apologies.
I, personally, think it will beat Avatar. But I have also read some reasonably well argued reasons why it won't. Avatar was (like Titanic) a very resilient film which didn't follow the normal box office patterns. Some commentators like the usually reliable John Campea still think it;s an outside bet that Episode 7 will make it.
True, and it may not: a $2.7bill worldwide gross is a huge thing.
Incidentally, to put this in context, Northern Ireland has a GVA of about $50bill pa. So Star Wars 7 is currently earning money at aproximately the same rate as the whole of Northern Ireland.
I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)
Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.
It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.
I worked in a law centre in North Ken in the early 80's and many of my clients were fatherless black kids, in and out of care, with neglectful families and with more knowledge of their social worker than of their actual father. They fell into gangs, out of school, into petty and not so petty crime and felt aggrieved at lots of things. It did not take much as a group to get them rioting, however charming they could be on an individual level. They were let down. They thought they were let down by the system but in truth those who had let them down years before were their own parents who brought children into the world and could not or would not stick around consistently to parent their children properly.
No, I agree with some of Letwin's analysis, in fact much of it is logically undeniable.
I just think he's a prat. And seriously over-promoted as a politician, despite his brains. He should be hidden away in laboratories, and his *interesting* ideas handled with extreme care.
He is largely hidden away. This is about something he said 30 years ago! What stupid stuff were you or I saying then?
If telling the truth, even part of it, is treated as an "interesting" idea to be handled with care, no wonder we have problems. We can deny stuff for a long time but reality will eventually find us and bite us on the arse.
I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)
Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.
It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.
That's the Republican view here too. The Democrats are less inclined to accept it (you can't say bad things about black people - it's racist) and want more social spending and many want a return to affirmative action. Classic identity politics on their part as it's one of their constituencies.
I said it because it was based on my own limited observation. It was not intended as a party political point. It occurred to me then what an advantage I had in having two firm but loving parents. The youths - not much younger than me - were not bad kids, not untalented but largely uneducated and unparented and left to fend for themselves at 16 or so. Add to that all sorts of other issues: racism, a lack of opportunities particularly for those with poor education and a criminal record, a recession etc and no wonder rioting ensued. But there was certainly a lack of morality on the part of the parents, the adults who failed in their most basic duty to their children, in the same way that happens to some white kids. We do no-one any favours by pretending that how children are brought up when young does not affect their chances later. A baby is for life, not just for Xmas. Family breakdown is the single most important risk factor for child abuse. We obsess about the latter but refuse to make the connection with our own actions or inactions as adults. It's no bloody use getting soppy about children and then refusing to accept that wanting to do the best for them involves making some sacrifices and putting some restraints on our own behaviour as adults and parents.
Sorry to sound so moralistic about it but sometimes moral judgments need to be made and when those who are harmed are the vulnerable then it's about bloody time we made some moral judgments instead of asking for stupid pretend apologies.
Don't apologize - sounds like you have a good understanding of the problem.
Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?
It is 4th I believe after Iowa, NH and SC and the last state before Super Tuesday
Many commentators are not calling it Super Tuesday any more. It's now the S.E.C. Primary because it's mainly states which have collegiate teams in the South Eastern Conference, plus VT and MA, plus a couple of caucus states.
FPTP might have had a place under the original Simon de Montfort concept (although it was actually the double-member bloc vote variant) of burghs and counties sending self-interested knights to parley with the King.
Or, just perhaps, in a federated, constitutionally-separated, Tweedledum/Tweedledee setup like the USA.
But the advent of the nation-state, a fused legislature/executive, political parties, mass enfranchisement, elections all on the same day, PM or "presidential" politics seen through the lense of TV, etc., and increasing pluralism (in votes) renders FPTP the penny-farthing of electoral systems, serving only the interests of political careerists.
In any case, it only came about (and survived) by conniving or accident. You'd think listening to some on here it should be cherished like the Domesday Book or Magna Carta, which is just asisine...
I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)
Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.
It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.
That's the Republican view here too. The Democrats are less inclined to accept it (you can't say bad things about black people - it's racist) and want more social spending and many want a return to affirmative action. Classic identity politics on their part as it's one of their constituencies.
I said it because it was based on my own limited observation. It was not intended as a party political point. It occurred to me then what an advantage I had in having two firm but loving parents. The youths - not much younger than me - were not bad kids, not untalented but largely uneducated and unparented and left to fend for themselves at 16 or so. Add to that all sorts of other issues: racism, a lack of opportunities particularly for those with poor education and a criminal record, a recession etc and no wonder rioting ensued. But there was certainly a lack of morality on the part of the parents, the adults who failed in their most basic duty to their children, in the same way that happens to some white kids. We do no-one any favours by pretending that how children are brought up when young does not affect their chances later. A baby is for life, not just for Xmas. Family breakdown is the single most important risk factor for child abuse. We obsess about the latter but refuse to make the connection with our own actions or inactions as adults. It's no bloody use getting soppy about children and then refusing to accept that wanting to do the best for them involves making some sacrifices and putting some restraints on our own behaviour as adults and parents.
Sorry to sound so moralistic about it but sometimes moral judgments need to be made and when those who are harmed are the vulnerable then it's about bloody time we made some moral judgments instead of asking for stupid pretend apologies.
Do you think they wanted their children to grow up as immoral leeches on PBs' taxes, or were there perhaps other factors preventing them from raising children easily?
On the not really a coincidence front, a media outlet in Morocco claimed that a number of intelligence agencies in Europe and North Africa were alerted to a possible plot for multi national attacks by IS sympathisers on New Years Eve.
Not too many hours after, the Belgians pick up a couple of people on suspicion of planning just such a New Years Eve attack. No sign of weapons though.
This is both fortunate and unfortunate, as the story is that IS would like to do something with some home brew sarin. In practical terms this is a difficult to deploy substance despite its mass kill reputation and in a hand spread situation will need good thinking and luck to get a real big result with.
There has been some notable improvement in human intelligence take from IS recently and if stories are correct, the US has caught itself a decent fish. Certainly IS has been trying hard to clamp down on its overall operational security, in particular comms security, within eastern Syria, where it is clear they less secure from strikes on mid and high ranking figures.
To the sensible Labour members, councillors, MEPs and MPs, please just jump. The revolution has happened and the lunatics are now running the asylum. Get out while you still can, it might be difficult at first but it's nothing compared to what Corbyn and his fellow travellers have planned. They've waited patiently for over 30 years for this moment, they're not going anywhere.
First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.
Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.
We are both stupid and backward...
Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.
For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.
It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.
No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency. As such it is completely democratic. What you apparently want is to change not only the voting system but also the basis upon which we vote - having us vote for a party rather than an individual representative. That is certainly less democratic than what we have now.
Most of us do vote for parties though. That's to say, we vote for an individual candidate but the only characteristic they have that matters is party affiliation.
We vote in arbitrary, meaningless units which no-one cares about for a selection of donkeys drawn from closed lists of one. Demographic distribution and change decides the outcome almost as much as the votes do.
Oh, and for those who can even get off their arses to participate in such a bankrupt system, for the past three elections the majority came away from the polling stations empty-handed, electing no-one...
There is no right to vote for a winner.
In fact, the definition of democracy might be: a system when sometimes you lose.
Cobblers. At least the slot machines have "guaranteed 75% payout."
FPTP for the last three elections has had "less than 50% payout"...
Ergo, if our electoral system was a slot machine it would have been legislatively extinguished years ago, but for the fact that its beneficiaries are in fact the legislators...
Episode 7 is a remake, pretty much everyone has seen it before, scene for scene.
Dude! Spoilers!
It's hardly spoilers after a fortnight, if anyone cares about spoilers they've seen it. And I think people should know it's a remake, this is quite an important point.
When are we going to stop pretending that Turkey is an ally and admit that it is at best, a neighbour, and at worst, an historic enemy - and that good fences = good neighbours.
You do know the point of the poem is that the wall falls down every winter and the neighbors get on better when they are collaborating on repairing the wall and working together than when they are separated by the wall?
Comments
"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.
“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-dismiss-disloyal-shadow-ministers-in-new-year-reshuffle-a6786956.html
It seems bonkers that a useless slob might land a seat for life, whereas a brilliant contribution might be cut off by a boundary commissioner's pen, or having the misfortune to represent a wholly artificial "marginal" creation.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/sec-primary-everything-you-need-to-know/npCdd/
The CofE is English. The Anglican Communion (often wrongly called the Anglican Church) is not.
Jeremy Corbyn has been lucky once, surfing a wave of insurgency that no one had guessed was brewing. He is looking to make Labour a hard left party off the back of that luck and has every chance of succeeding. And then the hard left can wait, making their case until circumstances mean that the public look elsewhere from the Conservatives and, they hope, to them, whether that be in 2020, 2025 or 2030. Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/10/antifrank-says-corbyns-strategy-is-we-only-have-to-be-lucky-once/
I think they think they can batten onto the Labour brand and with luck scrape into power at some point. And then they are home free.
I worked in a law centre in North Ken in the early 80's and many of my clients were fatherless black kids, in and out of care, with neglectful families and with more knowledge of their social worker than of their actual father. They fell into gangs, out of school, into petty and not so petty crime and felt aggrieved at lots of things. It did not take much as a group to get them rioting, however charming they could be on an individual level. They were let down. They thought they were let down by the system but in truth those who had let them down years before were their own parents who brought children into the world and could not or would not stick around consistently to parent their children properly.
Who passes for a 'senior source' in the Labour Party these days?
Not wishing to be controversial but isn't Maria Eagles a woman, and isn't Defence (and First Secretary of State) a topjob?
Yes she is and yes it is but she does not agree with Jeremy and that is the acid test. Burnham has done a good job because he has done nothing at all and has not opened his mouth.
When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:
Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.
People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.
There are no metrics to suggest people vote for candidates. None. Every metric we have absolutely and definitely shows that the electorate votes for parties.
Instead, they weigh the votes...
You're undermined by your own argument.
I hope it is appreciated that I am only being half serious about a demi important issue, but claiming he wants Abbott as Shadow Foreign Secretary because he want one of the top 4 jobs for a woman is a load of corbynite cobblers.
It is likely to face a backlash (albeit weaker than Phantom Menace) and once the fanbois and fangrrls stop watching it every couple of days it could fall fast.
Avatar was genuinely something no-one had ever seen before, which I think helped it hugely. Episode 7 is a remake, pretty much everyone has seen it before, scene for scene.
I said it because it was based on my own limited observation. It was not intended as a party political point. It occurred to me then what an advantage I had in having two firm but loving parents. The youths - not much younger than me - were not bad kids, not untalented but largely uneducated and unparented and left to fend for themselves at 16 or so. Add to that all sorts of other issues: racism, a lack of opportunities particularly for those with poor education and a criminal record, a recession etc and no wonder rioting ensued. But there was certainly a lack of morality on the part of the parents, the adults who failed in their most basic duty to their children, in the same way that happens to some white kids. We do no-one any favours by pretending that how children are brought up when young does not affect their chances later. A baby is for life, not just for Xmas. Family breakdown is the single most important risk factor for child abuse. We obsess about the latter but refuse to make the connection with our own actions or inactions as adults. It's no bloody use getting soppy about children and then refusing to accept that wanting to do the best for them involves making some sacrifices and putting some restraints on our own behaviour as adults and parents.
Sorry to sound so moralistic about it but sometimes moral judgments need to be made and when those who are harmed are the vulnerable then it's about bloody time we made some moral judgments instead of asking for stupid pretend apologies.
Incidentally, to put this in context, Northern Ireland has a GVA of about $50bill pa. So Star Wars 7 is currently earning money at aproximately the same rate as the whole of Northern Ireland. Dude! Spoilers!
If telling the truth, even part of it, is treated as an "interesting" idea to be handled with care, no wonder we have problems. We can deny stuff for a long time but reality will eventually find us and bite us on the arse.
Or, just perhaps, in a federated, constitutionally-separated, Tweedledum/Tweedledee setup like the USA.
But the advent of the nation-state, a fused legislature/executive, political parties, mass enfranchisement, elections all on the same day, PM or "presidential" politics seen through the lense of TV, etc., and increasing pluralism (in votes) renders FPTP the penny-farthing of electoral systems, serving only the interests of political careerists.
In any case, it only came about (and survived) by conniving or accident. You'd think listening to some on here it should be cherished like the Domesday Book or Magna Carta, which is just asisine...
my typo.
Not too many hours after, the Belgians pick up a couple of people on suspicion of planning just such a New Years Eve attack. No sign of weapons though.
This is both fortunate and unfortunate, as the story is that IS would like to do something with some home brew sarin. In practical terms this is a difficult to deploy substance despite its mass kill reputation and in a hand spread situation will need good thinking and luck to get a real big result with.
There has been some notable improvement in human intelligence take from IS recently and if stories are correct, the US has caught itself a decent fish. Certainly IS has been trying hard to clamp down on its overall operational security, in particular comms security, within eastern Syria, where it is clear they less secure from strikes on mid and high ranking figures.
FPTP for the last three elections has had "less than 50% payout"...
Ergo, if our electoral system was a slot machine it would have been legislatively extinguished years ago, but for the fact that its beneficiaries are in fact the legislators...
- or is it because Bill Clinton splashed out on Monica Lewinsky's dress?