There are some very good Labour councils run by talented, thoughtful, pragmatic Labour groups, and Oldham looks to be one of them. There are others that are rotten boroughs, though. There are similarly a fair few piss poor Tory monoliths. FPTP has plenty to answer for.
There are some very good Labour councils run by talented, thoughtful, pragmatic Labour groups, and Oldham looks to be one of them. There are others that are rotten boroughs, though. There are similarly a fair few piss poor Tory monoliths. FPTP has plenty to answer for.
Why blame FPTP when its the same in any nation under any democratic system (or none).
The election that never was marked the beginning of the end for Gordo.
Will the reshuffle that never was do the same for Jezza?
It was a funny day and you have to wonder why Corbyn selected the shadow cabinet he did in the first place. To go into it with the well trailed notion of moving or sacking Benn and end it after hours and hours with nothing happening, well it screams mass incompetence and total lack of that important quality 'judgement'. The likely consequences of sacking Benn must have been well know yet the Corbynites (this is not just about Corbyn) seemed quite unprepared for them. If Eagles allows herself to be moved then it says little for her, even if she was an unlikely Shadow Defence minister in the first place. Where could she go for somewhere comparable (who would be pushed out?), and she is also shadow first secretary of state - or has everyone forgotten?
Hunt is being very measured and expressing surprise at the Junior docs walking out.
Meanwhile, Docs are talking to themselves on fb.
This might, finally, make the public realise that the staff in the NHS are often part of the problem with it.
One could be forgiven for thinking that many of staff believe that the NHS is run for their benefit, rather than the patients. The latest bout of whining from privileged Junior Doctors merely confirms that.
I have been saying for a while that Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Now a fair few of you are agreeing, so I want to advance a further proposition: Parliamentary democracy, too, is an idea whose time has gone. Like Labour, it requires the principal source of political cleavage to be economic. And that is no longer so. People obsess about identity issues (as, indeed, they always have in Ireland) whilst power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
I'm not convinced Corbyn's position is any less secure after yesterday. His supporters in the membership are likely to see it as right-wing press + irridentist Blairites gang up on Jezza. They'll abandon him if he does something they disapprove of. In this case he's trying to do what they want and is being thwarted. They'll double down.
As to process crapness, they'll overlook that entirely. MSM propaganda. Or something.
@AlastairMeeks - "My impression is that some Corbynites are reluctantly concluding that Jeremy Corbyn has too much baggage to succeed and will need to make way in a while for a new leader who embodies the new values without the awkward history. He may not last as long as is conventionally thought if that view takes hold."
It's an interesting one. There are two kinds of Corbynite - the hard leftists, such as Livingstone, Abbott and McDonnell (and Corbyn himself) who see him as a means to take Labour over, and the wide-eyed useful idiots who see him much as NickP does, a doe-eyed, gentle man of principle who wants only to bring a kinder, gentler form of politics to Labour and the UK generally. There are a lot more of the latter than the former, so that is where the battle has to be fought. Hence the reluctance of people like Hillary Ben just to walk away.
I'm sure Nick will pop up at some point and add his two pence worth, but I seem to recall that he was also saying that Labour members, like himself, were also sick of the splitting the difference/triangulation of modern labour politics. Non-Corbynites in Labour need to think about this one a lot. Can they come up with new policies that change UK and attract people but are not 1970s rehashed state controlled nonsense nor a lot of triangulation?
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
Bigger issue is that he seems to have no leadership skills whatsoever, lurching from shambles to shambles.
There are some very good Labour councils run by talented, thoughtful, pragmatic Labour groups, and Oldham looks to be one of them. There are others that are rotten boroughs, though. There are similarly a fair few piss poor Tory monoliths. FPTP has plenty to answer for.
And quite a few northern labour councillors are quite appreciative of Osborne and 1) his northern powerhouse and 2) his proposals for greater devolution of local authority and NHS powers
I'm not convinced Corbyn's position is any less secure after yesterday. His supporters in the membership are likely to see it as right-wing press + irridentist Blairites gang up on Jezza. They'll abandon him if he does something they disapprove of. In this case he's trying to do what they want and is being thwarted. They'll double down.
As to process crapness, they'll overlook that entirely. MSM propaganda. Or something.
Jezza will stand up to big business, vested interests, capitalist exploitation, Tory warmongers and media barons...
Jeremy Corbyn has some resemblances to George Lansbury.
The resemblance that for me is stronger, however, is to a leader of another party: Andrew Bonar Law. The backwoodsmen imposed an old codger on the great and the good of the party after having insisted on a direction that the great thinkers strongly disagreed with. The grandees sat on their hands and the party was taken over by the plebs. The new leader himself turned out to be temporary but the takeover was permanent.
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
The starting point on the radical left on foreign policy has always been a scepticism about the splendours of the Western alliance and a willingness to give a sympathetic hearing to Third World people with a grievance - it goes right back to people like Nehru and Nkrumah and the elusive and ultimately unsuccessful search for a credible global third way. It doesn't mean they necessarily agree with them, and Corbyn has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Hamas and Hezbollah. (In some cases it extended to sympathy for Soviet communism, which isn't one of the things that Corbyn has ever nourished.)
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
Brown lasted through to the scheduled date of the election, two and a half years later.
True, but he had serious control of the PLP, which Corbyn clearly lacks
He did, though not necessarily his cabinet. His position would have become untenable had D Miliband gone at the same time as Purnell - though DM would have been damaged too by such a political and self-serving resignation (which is why I think he was right not to).
However, Brown was a careerist politician in a way that Corbyn isn't; Brown was ready to stand down if his leadership was clearly too damaging to Labour. I'm not sure that Corbyn would be; he strikes me as a last-ditcher in that respect. The amount of damage that the shadow cabinet or PLP would have to indirectly do to the party in removing Corbyn would be immense, which is what the Corbynites will be banking on.
I have long thought that Farage is the wrong person to lead the out campaign. Indeed my sole article for PB to date was about this very point. I have seen nothing in recent months to make me change my mind about this. UKIP may be a significant force but they still only got 12% of the vote. Yes that is a great achievement but it is still 38% short of what they need to win a referendum.
Those 12% will almost certainly all vote out anyway no matter who leads the campaign so the trick for Leave has to be to pick a figurehead who can appeal to a wider audience. Farage, for all his speaking ability, has too much baggage and cannot be that person.
Incidently I see that 6 more of the 2015 new Tory intake have said they will campaign to Leave over the last 24 hours.
I see that Farage is planning a career in TV when he finally loses the EU referendum.
@AlastairMeeks - "My impression is that some Corbynites are reluctantly concluding that Jeremy Corbyn has too much baggage to succeed and will need to make way in a while for a new leader who embodies the new values without the awkward history. He may not last as long as is conventionally thought if that view takes hold."
It's an interesting one. There are two kinds of Corbynite - the hard leftists, such as Livingstone, Abbott and McDonnell (and Corbyn himself) who see him as a means to take Labour over, and the wide-eyed useful idiots who see him much as NickP does, a doe-eyed, gentle man of principle who wants only to bring a kinder, gentler form of politics to Labour and the UK generally. There are a lot more of the latter than the former, so that is where the battle has to be fought. Hence the reluctance of people like Hillary Ben just to walk away.
I'm sure Nick will pop up at some point and add his two pence worth, but I seem to recall that he was also saying that Labour members, like himself, were also sick of the splitting the difference/triangulation of modern labour politics. Non-Corbynites in Labour need to think about this one a lot. Can they come up with new policies that change UK and attract people but are not 1970s rehashed state controlled nonsense nor a lot of triangulation?
While Jeremy continues to be a really top bloke the junior doctors are being shafted by the egregious Jeremy Hunt without a single word from the opposition. It's just pathetic self indulgence. I also want a Labour leader with principles but I also want one who does his job
The amount of damage that the shadow cabinet or PLP would have to indirectly do to the party in removing Corbyn would be immense, which is what the Corbynites will be banking on.
The amount of damage being done to the Party by not removing Corbyn is immense.
I have been saying for a while that Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Now a fair few of you are agreeing, so I want to advance a further proposition: Parliamentary democracy, too, is an idea whose time has gone. Like Labour, it requires the principal source of political cleavage to be economic. And that is no longer so. People obsess about identity issues (as, indeed, they always have in Ireland) whilst power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Even if one accepts your contention, which I don't, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow - though you could argue that it would follow that FPTP is an idea whose time has gone and that multiple identity-based politics would of necessity imply PR.
But I don't agree with the original point: representative democracy has overcome any number of social and political changes over the centuries.
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
The starting point on the radical left on foreign policy has always been a scepticism about the splendours of the Western alliance and a willingness to give a sympathetic hearing to Third World people with a grievance - it goes right back to people like Nehru and Nkrumah and the elusive and ultimately unsuccessful search for a credible global third way. It doesn't mean they necessarily agree with them, and Corbyn has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Hamas and Hezbollah. (In some cases it extended to sympathy for Soviet communism, which isn't one of the things that Corbyn has ever nourished.)
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
I'd be interested if you can furnish even one instance (let alone repeatedly) where Corbyn has disagreed with his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah? When and where has he publicy criticised them?
Or does this fall into your 'he was only having a peaceful dialogue with the IRA" category?
I'm not convinced Corbyn's position is any less secure after yesterday. His supporters in the membership are likely to see it as right-wing press + irridentist Blairites gang up on Jezza. They'll abandon him if he does something they disapprove of. In this case he's trying to do what they want and is being thwarted. They'll double down.
As to process crapness, they'll overlook that entirely. MSM propaganda. Or something.
Jezza will stand up to big business, vested interests, capitalist exploitation, Tory warmongers and media barons...
The Mirror is now claiming that the car hadn't been recalled.
A side issue to this: are there any data protection issues to Volvo releasing such information to the Mirror ? I'm slightly surprised they did so.
Quite a few cars have a locking nut. ....
Not many have a nut driving them Volvo now deny that the car was one that should have been recalled. But frankly given the VW crisis and other recall scandals I'm not sure they know themselves. How long can you drive without knowing you have 4 nuts loose?
Last ShCab appts went on and on and finally forced when a Commons debate requiring a spokesbod was imminent. I think one was apptd with about 30 mins to spare. No doubt, it'll be the same this afternoon.
I have been saying for a while that Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Now a fair few of you are agreeing, so I want to advance a further proposition: Parliamentary democracy, too, is an idea whose time has gone. Like Labour, it requires the principal source of political cleavage to be economic. And that is no longer so. People obsess about identity issues (as, indeed, they always have in Ireland) whilst power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Regarding the first point, I think it's possible (I won't say likely) that the Labour Party in headed for the exit. I don't think that's true of the centre-left itself. It's in a bad place now, all over Europe, but I wouldn't bet against a social-democrat resurgence in ten or twenty years. By resurgence I mean not just scraping back into office but rediscovering its intellectual dynamism and purpose.
I have been saying for a while that Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Now a fair few of you are agreeing, so I want to advance a further proposition: Parliamentary democracy, too, is an idea whose time has gone. Like Labour, it requires the principal source of political cleavage to be economic. And that is no longer so. People obsess about identity issues (as, indeed, they always have in Ireland) whilst power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Even if one accepts your contention, which I don't, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow - though you could argue that it would follow that FPTP is an idea whose time has gone and that multiple identity-based politics would of necessity imply PR.
But I don't agree with the original point: representative democracy has overcome any number of social and political changes over the centuries.
How many centuries have we had representative democracy? Less than one, surely?
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
The starting point on the radical left on foreign policy has always been a scepticism about the splendours of the Western alliance and a willingness to give a sympathetic hearing to Third World people with a grievance - it goes right back to people like Nehru and Nkrumah and the elusive and ultimately unsuccessful search for a credible global third way. It doesn't mean they necessarily agree with them, and Corbyn has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Hamas and Hezbollah. (In some cases it extended to sympathy for Soviet communism, which isn't one of the things that Corbyn has ever nourished.)
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
I'd be interested if you can furnish even one instance (let alone repeatedly) where Corbyn has disagreed with his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah? When and where has he publicy criticised them?
Or does this fall into your 'he was only having a peaceful dialogue with the IRA" category?
NPs meanderings are a clear example of why Labour should not be let anywhere near government. They are a shambles and there are going to be increasingly fewer even remotely sane representatives of this shambles available to elect. Lets face it, after his recent revelations, no one in their right mind would elect NP.
Miss Plato, and a welcome contrast to Corbyn offering a free vote on Syria, then trying (and failing) to sack the man who had the temerity to express his view on the matter.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
The starting point on the radical left on foreign policy has always been a scepticism about the splendours of the Western alliance and a willingness to give a sympathetic hearing to Third World people with a grievance - it goes right back to people like Nehru and Nkrumah and the elusive and ultimately unsuccessful search for a credible global third way. It doesn't mean they necessarily agree with them, and Corbyn has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Hamas and Hezbollah. (In some cases it extended to sympathy for Soviet communism, which isn't one of the things that Corbyn has ever nourished.)
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
I'd be interested if you can furnish even one instance (let alone repeatedly) where Corbyn has disagreed with his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah? When and where has he publicy criticised them?
Or does this fall into your 'he was only having a peaceful dialogue with the IRA" category?
NPs meanderings are a clear example of why Labour should not be let anywhere near government. They are a shambles and there are going to be increasingly fewer even remotely sane representatives of this shambles available to elect. Lets face it, after his recent revelations, no one in their right mind would elect NP.
I wonder if Nick Palmer has his sights on being an MEP in a few years time. The Labour selectorate will be mightily appreciative of his conspicuous loyalty and fealty to Corbyn and will surely overlook his conspicuous loyalty and fealty to Tony Blair.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
So only 33% short of what they need to win a referendum.
As I said, I suspect just about every single one of those UKIP voters will vote leave no matter who is running the campaign. The trick will be to have a campaign leader who will appeal to the other 33% we need. Farage is not that man.
I have been saying for a while that Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Now a fair few of you are agreeing, so I want to advance a further proposition: Parliamentary democracy, too, is an idea whose time has gone. Like Labour, it requires the principal source of political cleavage to be economic. And that is no longer so. People obsess about identity issues (as, indeed, they always have in Ireland) whilst power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
The whip system makes for weak and lazy politicians, the Syria debate showed how parliament should be conducted. 90% of MPs are sales reps delivering a script and voting to order.
@AlastairMeeks - "My impression is that some Corbynites are reluctantly concluding that Jeremy Corbyn has too much baggage to succeed and will need to make way in a while for a new leader who embodies the new values without the awkward history. He may not last as long as is conventionally thought if that view takes hold."
It's an interesting one. There are two kinds of Corbynite - the hard leftists, such as Livingstone, Abbott and McDonnell (and Corbyn himself) who see him as a means to take Labour over, and the wide-eyed useful idiots who see him much as NickP does, a doe-eyed, gentle man of principle who wants only to bring a kinder, gentler form of politics to Labour and the UK generally. There are a lot more of the latter than the former, so that is where the battle has to be fought. Hence the reluctance of people like Hillary Ben just to walk away.
I'm sure Nick will pop up at some point and add his two pence worth, but I seem to recall that he was also saying that Labour members, like himself, were also sick of the splitting the difference/triangulation of modern labour politics. Non-Corbynites in Labour need to think about this one a lot. Can they come up with new policies that change UK and attract people but are not 1970s rehashed state controlled nonsense nor a lot of triangulation?
If I may be allowed to answer: no.
There is no harkback to the '70s but in a free-market capitalist-ish way that utilises the best bits of capitalism but is steeped in statist policy.
Get The F**k Real!
It is wishful thinking, fantasy, student politics. It's certainly not fit for adoption by HMO ffs.
I mean look at that picture of Jezza and the trains. "Cut fares, not staff". How does Jezza think that the railways are funded? (Ans: @JosiasJessop pls!)
It is a cosy, safe, impotent retreat from serious pragmatic politics. What a tragedy for Lab.
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
The starting point on the radical left on foreign policy has always been a scepticism about the splendours of the Western alliance and a willingness to give a sympathetic hearing to Third World people with a grievance - it goes right back to people like Nehru and Nkrumah and the elusive and ultimately unsuccessful search for a credible global third way. It doesn't mean they necessarily agree with them, and Corbyn has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Hamas and Hezbollah. (In some cases it extended to sympathy for Soviet communism, which isn't one of the things that Corbyn has ever nourished.)
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
I'd be interested if you can furnish even one instance (let alone repeatedly) where Corbyn has disagreed with his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah? When and where has he publicy criticised them?
Or does this fall into your 'he was only having a peaceful dialogue with the IRA" category?
NPs meanderings are a clear example of why Labour should not be let anywhere near government. They are a shambles and there are going to be increasingly fewer even remotely sane representatives of this shambles available to elect. Lets face it, after his recent revelations, no one in their right mind would elect NP.
For giggles, go back to the 70s. Wonder what Corbyns policy would have been on Pol Pot? - go look....
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
I have been saying for a while that Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Now a fair few of you are agreeing, so I want to advance a further proposition: Parliamentary democracy, too, is an idea whose time has gone. Like Labour, it requires the principal source of political cleavage to be economic. And that is no longer so. People obsess about identity issues (as, indeed, they always have in Ireland) whilst power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Even if one accepts your contention, which I don't, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow - though you could argue that it would follow that FPTP is an idea whose time has gone and that multiple identity-based politics would of necessity imply PR.
But I don't agree with the original point: representative democracy has overcome any number of social and political changes over the centuries.
How many centuries have we had representative democracy? Less than one, surely?
And how many lives did that cost Germany Russia Japan Italy China? How many lives did it cost Europe in the 30 years war? How many lives has crass totalitarian non democratic dictatorship cost the world? Not to mention religious bigotry.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
So only 33% short of what they need to win a referendum.
As I said, I suspect just about every single one of those UKIP voters will vote leave no matter who is running the campaign. The trick will be to have a campaign leader who will appeal to the other 33% we need. Farage is not that man.
Farage is actively repellent to a lot of people and will stop them giving Leave a hearing.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
Indeed and I said as much in my post on the subject a couple of days back. And I agree with you on the timing of both.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
So only 33% short of what they need to win a referendum.
As I said, I suspect just about every single one of those UKIP voters will vote leave no matter who is running the campaign. The trick will be to have a campaign leader who will appeal to the other 33% we need. Farage is not that man.
Nobody in the referendum will see ukip on the ballot paper so your point is moot.
People are conflating ukip polling figures with the referendum which is silly. There is a visceral dislike on here for ukip (not from you Mr Tyndall) the amount of anti ukip/Nigel threads is amazing, but the support among the public is solid. It's not enough to win seats, and until the referendum is done and dusted the party itself will just stagger along, but under a new leadership team I'm convinced it will resurge.
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
The starting point on the radical left on foreign policy has always been a scepticism about the splendours of the Western alliance and a willingness to give a sympathetic hearing to Third World people with a grievance - it goes right back to people like Nehru and Nkrumah and the elusive and ultimately unsuccessful search for a credible global third way. It doesn't mean they necessarily agree with them, and Corbyn has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Hamas and Hezbollah. (In some cases it extended to sympathy for Soviet communism, which isn't one of the things that Corbyn has ever nourished.)
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
I'd be interested if you can furnish even one instance (let alone repeatedly) where Corbyn has disagreed with his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah? When and where has he publicy criticised them?
Or does this fall into your 'he was only having a peaceful dialogue with the IRA" category?
NPs meanderings are a clear example of why Labour should not be let anywhere near government. They are a shambles and there are going to be increasingly fewer even remotely sane representatives of this shambles available to elect. Lets face it, after his recent revelations, no one in their right mind would elect NP.
I wonder if Nick Palmer has his sights on being an MEP in a few years time. The Labour selectorate will be mightily appreciative of his conspicuous loyalty and fealty to Corbyn and will surely overlook his conspicuous loyalty and fealty to Tony Blair.
"In a few years time." Crikey ..... NP will be 66 in a month's time, when do you think he might consider retiring from public office and give the younger ones a chance?
I agree with that. My beef is with people such as NickP who believe that a hard-leftist such as Jeremy Corbyn is the solution and see him as an innocent naïf intent on only doing good and promoting discussion when he has spent 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and has surrounded himself since becoming leader with anti-Western advisers who actively campaigned against Labour in the not-too-distant past.
The starting point on the radical left on foreign policy has always been a scepticism about the splendours of the Western alliance and a willingness to give a sympathetic hearing to Third World people with a grievance - it goes right back to people like Nehru and Nkrumah and the elusive and ultimately unsuccessful search for a credible global third way. It doesn't mean they necessarily agree with them, and Corbyn has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Hamas and Hezbollah. (In some cases it extended to sympathy for Soviet communism, which isn't one of the things that Corbyn has ever nourished.)
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
I'd be interested if you can furnish even one instance (let alone repeatedly) where Corbyn has disagreed with his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah? When and where has he publicy criticised them?
Or does this fall into your 'he was only having a peaceful dialogue with the IRA" category?
NPs meanderings are a clear example of why Labour should not be let anywhere near government. They are a shambles and there are going to be increasingly fewer even remotely sane representatives of this shambles available to elect. Lets face it, after his recent revelations, no one in their right mind would elect NP.
I wonder if Nick Palmer has his sights on being an MEP in a few years time. The Labour selectorate will be mightily appreciative of his conspicuous loyalty and fealty to Corbyn and will surely overlook his conspicuous loyalty and fealty to Tony Blair.
"In a few years time." Crikey ..... NP will be 66 in a month's time, when do you think he might consider retiring from public office and give the younger ones a chance?
Oh he wants to emulate that youngster Master Corbyn in every way.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
In terms of time what is the least notice than can be given?
Regarding the junior doctors, there is no way they lose public sympathy. If there are deaths the Government will get the blame. In a doctors vs politicians dispute the public won't even give the latter the right to a hearing.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
The tories would be wise to leave their active support/opposition until there is something to talk or campaign about. They do have a country to govern. But surely in reality the fact the the EU know that there will be a serious campaign during this referendum ought to strengthen his hand.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
In terms of time what is the least notice than can be given?
16 weeks. I'm expecting the least notice possible once David Cameron is ready.
One reason why David Cameron may well want to go early is that the Leave camps are squabbling for precedence and this is likely to continue for some time. Going later will give them more time to sort themselves out.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
Indeed and I said as much in my post on the subject a couple of days back. And I agree with you on the timing of both.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
So only 33% short of what they need to win a referendum.
As I said, I suspect just about every single one of those UKIP voters will vote leave no matter who is running the campaign. The trick will be to have a campaign leader who will appeal to the other 33% we need. Farage is not that man.
Nobody in the referendum will see ukip on the ballot paper so your point is moot.
People are conflating ukip polling figures with the referendum which is silly. There is a visceral dislike on here for ukip (not from you Mr Tyndall) the amount of anti ukip/Nigel threads is amazing, but the support among the public is solid. It's not enough to win seats, and until the referendum is done and dusted the party itself will just stagger along, but under a new leadership team I'm convinced it will resurge.
Well, this is a Lib Dem run site - hardly the place for UKIPtastic enthusiasm...
UKIP need to make the jump from protest party to effective political party. Without that they will not make the jump to getting lots of MPs.
This doesn't, as some seem to believe, mean compromising principles or become New Labour. It does mean building an effective political organisation, creating a real ground game etc.
Given that Labour is desperately trying to give political power away, especially in the North, it is very, very rude of UKIP to not oblige.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
In terms of time what is the least notice than can be given?
16 weeks. I'm expecting the least notice possible once David Cameron is ready.
One reason why David Cameron may well want to go early is that the Leave camps are squabbling for precedence and this is likely to continue for some time. Going later will give them more time to sort themselves out.
Thank you.
I'm interested to know which f the Leave groups become official and when, from what I gather Vote Leave is working closely with all, Leave.Eu isn't.
My instinct is Cameron will delay as long as possible.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
So only 33% short of what they need to win a referendum.
As I said, I suspect just about every single one of those UKIP voters will vote leave no matter who is running the campaign. The trick will be to have a campaign leader who will appeal to the other 33% we need. Farage is not that man.
Nobody in the referendum will see ukip on the ballot paper so your point is moot.
People are conflating ukip polling figures with the referendum which is silly. There is a visceral dislike on here for ukip (not from you Mr Tyndall) the amount of anti ukip/Nigel threads is amazing, but the support among the public is solid. It's not enough to win seats, and until the referendum is done and dusted the party itself will just stagger along, but under a new leadership team I'm convinced it will resurge.
Public support is solid but so is public loathing.
I am more bullish about Leave than most people but even I think that Remain is in good shape if Farage is the face of Leave. Too many uncommitted/undecided people will say "Christ, not that pillock" and switch off.
Following on from last nights discussion of accents and dialect, this is an interesting article on Indian Idioms. I have had many letters asking me to "do the needful".
English is an evolving languge, and an increasingly international one.
I hate the use of "kindly" when what is meant is "please".
And the other one that's creeping into business communication, on a customer/supplier basis, is "please may you...". No. I can or I can't. This is, I know, a hyper-correction from people who've had it drilled into them at school to ask "may I go to the toilet?" but still.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
The most noticeable subsample yesterday was the >60 demographic.
UKIP were eight points ahead of Labour. The 60+ battle is becoming Tory v UKIP.
It may be that Labour are being written out of the contest. How can Labour ever hope to win when they have toxic leadership with the people most likely to vote?
The same thing may be happening in Scotland where the Tories may emerge as the main opposition to the SNP, with Labour written out.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
So only 33% short of what they need to win a referendum.
As I said, I suspect just about every single one of those UKIP voters will vote leave no matter who is running the campaign. The trick will be to have a campaign leader who will appeal to the other 33% we need. Farage is not that man.
Nobody in the referendum will see ukip on the ballot paper so your point is moot.
People are conflating ukip polling figures with the referendum which is silly. There is a visceral dislike on here for ukip (not from you Mr Tyndall) the amount of anti ukip/Nigel threads is amazing, but the support among the public is solid. It's not enough to win seats, and until the referendum is done and dusted the party itself will just stagger along, but under a new leadership team I'm convinced it will resurge.
Well, this is a Lib Dem run site - hardly the place for UKIPtastic enthusiasm...
UKIP need to make the jump from protest party to effective political party. Without that they will not make the jump to getting lots of MPs.
This doesn't, as some seem to believe, mean compromising principles or become New Labour. It does mean building an effective political organisation, creating a real ground game etc.
Given that Labour is desperately trying to give political power away, especially in the North, it is very, very rude of UKIP to not oblige.
Picking up on your last line, that's what people keep saying, and I keep telling them that the infrastructure and resources within the party are minimal/non-existent.
It will take several more elections for ukip to become battle hardened, I'm not sure they can continue in the present state for much longer.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
In terms of time what is the least notice than can be given?
16 weeks. I'm expecting the least notice possible once David Cameron is ready.
One reason why David Cameron may well want to go early is that the Leave camps are squabbling for precedence and this is likely to continue for some time. Going later will give them more time to sort themselves out.
True. Everything favours going early from Cameron's point of view. I think even June vs September makes a real difference.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
In terms of time what is the least notice than can be given?
16 weeks. I'm expecting the least notice possible once David Cameron is ready.
One reason why David Cameron may well want to go early is that the Leave camps are squabbling for precedence and this is likely to continue for some time. Going later will give them more time to sort themselves out.
Is Cam still out on a Leave? Or has he thrown it not only to the people but to his party also and aim to lead whatever happens thereafter. For someone who has said he will step down and who it seems everyone wants to stay, it would be strange to gamble on an early ref, a Leave, and then a resignation.
Poor old Nigel; first an assassination attempt and now this. How much can one man take before he breaks?
Let's not talk about the fact that UKIP polled 17% with YouGov yesterday, one of their best showings for a long time.
Well this is the point. UKIP are disheveled, skint and rudderless but polling in the high teens, despite everybody on pb telling us they're finished and Nigel is a liability.
The most noticeable subsample yesterday was the >60 demographic.
UKIP were eight points ahead of Labour. The 60+ battle is becoming Tory v UKIP.
It may be that Labour are being written out of the contest. How can Labour hope to win when they have toxic leadership with the people most likely to vote?
The same thing may be happening in Scotland where the Tories may emerge as the main opposition to the SNP, with Labour written out.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
Ideal timing, surely, when the media and pb are distracted by Corbyn backing down, for Cameron to do likewise.
The Boris problem may have concentrated the PM's, or more likely George Osborne's, mind. If Boris is to challenge Osborne for the leadership, he needs a big win which probably means leading the referendum campaign, where under the original plan, Boris could have been the public face. The alternative way to shut him up would be to appoint him as SoS for Something-or-other, but that is self-defeating as it also gives Boris a platform.
The BBC - Harold Wilson David Cameron to announce that UK ministers will be allowed to campaign for either side ahead of the EU referendum
Well, that's the first of my two assumptions fulfilled on why the Tories will not split post referendum.
David Cameron didn't really have a choice on this. My only surprise is that he's conceded the point this early in the process. It suggests to me that the vote may well be sooner rather than later.
In terms of time what is the least notice than can be given?
16 weeks. I'm expecting the least notice possible once David Cameron is ready.
One reason why David Cameron may well want to go early is that the Leave camps are squabbling for precedence and this is likely to continue for some time. Going later will give them more time to sort themselves out.
True. Everything favours going early from Cameron's point of view. I think even June vs September makes a real difference.
Plenty of people saying the refugee crisis will worsen in the summer, right or wrong plenty will link that with the EU.
It's a massive call for Dave in terms of timing, does Bottler Brown become Dithering Dave?
Mr. 63, worth noting that 2017 is the year mentioned more, previously. It's interesting the debate is now what month this year rather than now or 2017.
Comments
To go into it with the well trailed notion of moving or sacking Benn and end it after hours and hours with nothing happening, well it screams mass incompetence and total lack of that important quality 'judgement'.
The likely consequences of sacking Benn must have been well know yet the Corbynites (this is not just about Corbyn) seemed quite unprepared for them.
If Eagles allows herself to be moved then it says little for her, even if she was an unlikely Shadow Defence minister in the first place. Where could she go for somewhere comparable (who would be pushed out?), and she is also shadow first secretary of state - or has everyone forgotten?
As to process crapness, they'll overlook that entirely. MSM propaganda. Or something.
1) his northern powerhouse and
2) his proposals for greater devolution of local authority and NHS powers
...just not his Shadow cabinet.
Unless you're a Corbynite, I can't see the positive of Corbyn. What's the selling point?
The resemblance that for me is stronger, however, is to a leader of another party: Andrew Bonar Law. The backwoodsmen imposed an old codger on the great and the good of the party after having insisted on a direction that the great thinkers strongly disagreed with. The grandees sat on their hands and the party was taken over by the plebs. The new leader himself turned out to be temporary but the takeover was permanent.
You've consistently seen this as entirely beyond the pale and it seems to be the touchstone for you, much more than say the anti-austerity policies. I don't (and I see the Western alliance historically as necessary in e.g. Korea but not a consistent force for good), and see your preoccupation with this aspect as a bit obsessive, though I do see that it produces a history with contacts that are awkward if you suddenly become party leader. Perhaps that, more than naivete, is the area where we differ?
I never planned to reshuffle Benn anywayauthenticityHowever, Brown was a careerist politician in a way that Corbyn isn't; Brown was ready to stand down if his leadership was clearly too damaging to Labour. I'm not sure that Corbyn would be; he strikes me as a last-ditcher in that respect. The amount of damage that the shadow cabinet or PLP would have to indirectly do to the party in removing Corbyn would be immense, which is what the Corbynites will be banking on.
But I don't agree with the original point: representative democracy has overcome any number of social and political changes over the centuries.
RESHUFFLE LATEST: Hilary Benn won't be sacked, although he will be asked to start smoking a pipe and change his name to Tony.
Or does this fall into your 'he was only having a peaceful dialogue with the IRA" category?
Volvo now deny that the car was one that should have been recalled. But frankly given the VW crisis and other recall scandals I'm not sure they know themselves. How long can you drive without knowing you have 4 nuts loose?
The purples would still be better off if Farage toddled off.
As I said, I suspect just about every single one of those UKIP voters will vote leave no matter who is running the campaign. The trick will be to have a campaign leader who will appeal to the other 33% we need. Farage is not that man.
There is no harkback to the '70s but in a free-market capitalist-ish way that utilises the best bits of capitalism but is steeped in statist policy.
Get The F**k Real!
It is wishful thinking, fantasy, student politics. It's certainly not fit for adoption by HMO ffs.
I mean look at that picture of Jezza and the trains. "Cut fares, not staff". How does Jezza think that the railways are funded? (Ans: @JosiasJessop pls!)
It is a cosy, safe, impotent retreat from serious pragmatic politics. What a tragedy for Lab.
Just been sacked by Jeremy Corbyn. I wished him a happy new year.
How many lives has crass totalitarian non democratic dictatorship cost the world? Not to mention religious bigotry.
Who do you favour as Leavemeister?
People are conflating ukip polling figures with the referendum which is silly. There is a visceral dislike on here for ukip (not from you Mr Tyndall) the amount of anti ukip/Nigel threads is amazing, but the support among the public is solid. It's not enough to win seats, and until the referendum is done and dusted the party itself will just stagger along, but under a new leadership team I'm convinced it will resurge.
Test match
Labour unshuffle
Any way to bet on this?
But surely in reality the fact the the EU know that there will be a serious campaign during this referendum ought to strengthen his hand.
One reason why David Cameron may well want to go early is that the Leave camps are squabbling for precedence and this is likely to continue for some time. Going later will give them more time to sort themselves out.
UKIP need to make the jump from protest party to effective political party. Without that they will not make the jump to getting lots of MPs.
This doesn't, as some seem to believe, mean compromising principles or become New Labour. It does mean building an effective political organisation, creating a real ground game etc.
Given that Labour is desperately trying to give political power away, especially in the North, it is very, very rude of UKIP to not oblige.
I'm interested to know which f the Leave groups become official and when, from what I gather Vote Leave is working closely with all, Leave.Eu isn't.
My instinct is Cameron will delay as long as possible.
I am more bullish about Leave than most people but even I think that Remain is in good shape if Farage is the face of Leave. Too many uncommitted/undecided people will say "Christ, not that pillock" and switch off.
Islington 1. The North 0.
And the other one that's creeping into business communication, on a customer/supplier basis, is "please may you...". No. I can or I can't. This is, I know, a hyper-correction from people who've had it drilled into them at school to ask "may I go to the toilet?" but still.
UKIP were eight points ahead of Labour. The 60+ battle is becoming Tory v UKIP.
It may be that Labour are being written out of the contest. How can Labour ever hope to win when they have toxic leadership with the people most likely to vote?
The same thing may be happening in Scotland where the Tories may emerge as the main opposition to the SNP, with Labour written out.
It will take several more elections for ukip to become battle hardened, I'm not sure they can continue in the present state for much longer.
@skynewsniall: "You've got shadow foreign, d'you want to go for the leadership?" https://t.co/VD45xsgPBe
The Boris problem may have concentrated the PM's, or more likely George Osborne's, mind. If Boris is to challenge Osborne for the leadership, he needs a big win which probably means leading the referendum campaign, where under the original plan, Boris could have been the public face. The alternative way to shut him up would be to appoint him as SoS for Something-or-other, but that is self-defeating as it also gives Boris a platform.
Only in this version, Samuel's taken his own army prisoner and is in the process of mutilating it.
It's a massive call for Dave in terms of timing, does Bottler Brown become Dithering Dave?