Regarding the Labour leadership I wonder if we are overegging the point that the members will just re-elect Corbyn if he's on the ballot. They might not. We need to imagine the circumstances in which the contest would take place. A huge line-up of MPs, day after day, saying, with regret, that Jeremy wasn't up to it; increasingly shrill briefings from Milne; rehashing of arguments with sacked ministers; Corbyn saying he will "never never never" give it up. Reimposing Corbyn in those circumstances is a pretty nuclear option for the membership. I wonder if 50.001% would really do it.
Yes, if the current crop of dissidents had forced the election. The members I know, some of whom didn't vote for Corbyn, are far more annoyed with people who go to the media with damaging quotes than they are with the leadership. They might change their minds if a period of relative peace is followed by bad election results anyway, but right now they would simply blame the dissidents for not giving Jeremy a fair chance.
Ah, OK. Thanks for the reply. How about if it's not the current crop though, but people who have kept their heads down until now?
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
I've never understood why Cameron should be expected to resign if Leave wins. If Leave wins, then it means a very clear majority of Conservative voters will have voted that way.
If Cameron leads Remain, as is likely, and it is an Out vote his position and that of Osborne will be almost untenable, he would almost certainly resign anyway and be replaced by a leading Tory Outer
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
Di Caprio is best-priced 1/4 for the Oscars.
It seems to be Di Caprio's turn, awarded for a so-far un-Oscared body of work as much as for The Revenant (which I hear a number of BAFTA members watched for all of ten minutes before moving on to the next screener...). Hard to see any other performance getting the momentum to come close.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
OK. If those who live, work and run businesses in those areas are exempted from paying anything towards a service they won't be receiving.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions. But maybe you oppose Corporation Tax too.
Should only parents pay for schools?
What do you think, as the one advocating a withdrawal of universal healthcare from certain areas on the basis that workers within the NHS can't afford to live there?
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions.
Err, and subsidised cheap labour (tax credits, housing benefit, etc) oh and educated labour (schooling of their workforce - and the taking care during working hours of their workforce's children)...
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
The thing is, even if Corbyn resigns or is toppled, the leadership election rules remain the same, as does the membership (which may have moved even further to the left since the glorious summer of 2015!) and so his successor will likely be not much different...
If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
All I could think of is a stitch-up by the MPs, whereby Corbyn is persuaded to stand down in favour of his chosen successor (say McDonnell) but the MPs refuse to nominate McDonnell at the last minute after Corbyn has tendered his resignation - leaving the party members a choice of Kendall, Jarvis or Benn.
The question for me is whether "liberal conservatism" has run its course - Cameron's unideological ideology has been popular but I just wonder if his successor will be much less liberal and much more conservative and whether that will provide an opportunity for a new centrist party to fill the gap.
I would argue the opposite - whereas 10 years ago a liberal conservative (like me!) would have to chose between the Lib Dems, the Tories or New Labour (in that order, perhaps, until the election of DC) now there is a clear choice of which party to join or support if you are of a centrist/liberal conservative tendency.
The choice of next Tory party leader will be crucial and I hope that it will be someone on the liberal/centrist/'one nation' end of party spectrum... I will of course be voting in the election and will probably vote for the 'one nation' candidate (I suspect the final two - for the membership to chose from - will be one from the 'one nation' camp and one from the right/more conservative end of the party). A 'one nation' leader of the party in 2020 - with the Lib Dems finished, Labour split and lead by a lefty-loon (be it JC or his successor), and UKIP in their post-referendum "what is the point of our party now" stage - will sweep to power with a healthy majority. Especially if the boundary changes go through.
In short, the Conservative party will (hopefully - but I think quite likely) increasingly become a broad church, spreading from the centre to the right, encompassing many liberals (of the classic meaning, not the socialist sort of course)... the idea of a new centrist party (made up of non-Corbynista Labour MPs and the Lib Dems) is a nice idea, but doesn't seem like happening due to massive inertia. (I don't think it has sunk in yet with many Labour MPs how their party is being fundamentally altered beneath their Parliamentary feet..!) Post-2020 may be a different story though.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
Heard of the Tube? Junior doctors can easily afford to commute from zones 3 to 6 or the Home Counties to central London, if they are consultants or partners in a GP practice they may even be able to buy in zones 1 and 2
'Another quango chief needing a large slap with Mr Dancer's enormo-haddock.'
Now the tories have a majority they can perhaps work harder against labour's vast placeman army that makes initiatives such as this and the witch hunt of our soldiers.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
I remember that poll. My point is that those numbers might change though. (What I'm really getting at is that it's dangerous to think of some factor as a near-certainty, when betting, if it's not.)
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
OK. If those who live, work and run businesses in those areas are exempted from paying anything towards a service they won't be receiving.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions. But maybe you oppose Corporation Tax too.
Should only parents pay for schools?
What do you think, as the one advocating a withdrawal of universal healthcare from certain areas on the basis that workers within the NHS can't afford to live there?
According to the ST our new Shadow Defence Secretary spoke at rallies with Hamas representatives.
The Bucket women just get worse and worse...
Hyacinth's appointment shows how low down the pecking order defence would be in a Corbyn government. I suspect she would spend all her time trying to stop the Cabinet nicking her entire departmental budget.
"Of, c'mon, we need to keep on at least two Guardsmen for the tourist snaps outside Buckingham - er, I mean, the Peoples' - Palace...."
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
I've never understood why Cameron should be expected to resign if Leave wins. If Leave wins, then it means a very clear majority of Conservative voters will have voted that way.
If Cameron leads Remain, as is likely, and it is an Out vote his position and that of Osborne will be almost untenable, he would almost certainly resign anyway and be replaced by a leading Tory Outer
No it wouldn't. Cameron would simply negotiate to take us into the EEA.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions.
Err, and subsidised cheap labour (tax credits, housing benefit, etc) oh and educated labour (schooling of their workforce)...
As well as roads, street lighting, healthcare for their employees etc
But I do think corporation taxes could and should be lower. As little or less than Ireland ideally.
I would abolish corporation tax altogether. No point in taxing something (eg a corporation) that can move. Tax stuff that can't move or won't move easily or has a clear location of occurrence - eg land & property (based on its value/rentable value), sales (...or purchases...) of goods and services, and personal income. I would replace pretty much all our existing taxes (including duties and council tax) with three or four taxes based on those three areas of activity/existence.
This is the problem the doctors have, they'll be linked with Momentum and their arguments, valid or not, will be completely lost.
Another example of idiot socialists, any sympathy for the JDs will disappear
98% of the junior docs voted for the strike, on a 76% turnout. They are not all Trots, indeed I know a few Con and UKIP voting juniors who will be striking. On Tuesday there will be emergency cover, it will be elective work that is cancelled so heart attacks and car crashes will be fine. Go right ahead.
Of course the picket lines will attract hangers on, they always do, but the BMA JDA stewards have had plenty of briefings. Of course they will not stop visitors or other staff crossing. The strike ballot does not cover me for example. The vote on the new Consultant contract is not for another month, the BMA has been confirming details for that ballot for a few weeks now.
Neither side is in a mood to compromise, but I suspect that when the first strike goes ahead there will be a lower threshold for further actions. They will no longer be virgins. I suspect that we will have intermittent strikes for months.
Get out of your bubble Mr Fox, ignore party allegiance, if doctors strike sympathy will disappear. It won't in your circle at work but pop into a pub and do a survey.
I think you will be surprised. And I do frequent pubs, as do many junior docs.
It shouldn't have got this far. Hunt has badly bodged the contract. This is an industrial action not a political one. Jrs would happily continue the existing contract, pay and conditions. The decision of Hunt to impose the new contract in August is what provoked the strike.
Lots of spin around but none of it, not even the BMA trots stuff in the Mail, seeks to defend Hunt's shiny new contract.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
Heard of the Tube? Junior doctors can easily afford to commute from zones 3 to 6 to central London, if they are consultants or partners in a GP practice they may even be able to buy in zones 1 and 2
That's a given since many earn far, far more than the majority of the poor saps coughing up taxes to fund their salaries.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
Being Mayor of a global city like London is a major role, indeed there are more people who live in Greater London than the whole of Scotland!
Smart thinking by TSE. But remember it's dependent on Sadiq Khan winning the Mayoralty, which is only a bit better than odds on. I'm doubtful whether Labour will go for another London figure after the Metropolitanism of Jeremy Corbyn.
'Another quango chief needing a large slap with Mr Dancer's enormo-haddock.'
Now the tories have a majority they can perhaps work harder against labour's vast placeman army that makes initiatives such as this and the witch hunt of our soldiers.
Another one with his head up his orifice, what about their army of placemen and hangers on. neither want to upset the applecart as they are just cheeks of the same money grubbing arse.
I think the official line is he took a sabbatical. No idea why. Damned shame. He was to foreign affairs what Andrew Neil is to politics.
Mr. Taffys, they should.
Yes, I always found him really good on Sky News. I had noticed he wasn't there for certain things, but I didn't realise it hadn't been 2 years. I presumed he still worked for them and I just hadn't seen him / he was on an extended break.
And that article is again good, unlike the tripe on BBC / Guardian, which is full on Stage III'ing now. Every article is now but but but think of the backlash, but but but this is what ISIS want.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
OK. If those who live, work and run businesses in those areas are exempted from paying anything towards a service they won't be receiving.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions. But maybe you oppose Corporation Tax too.
Should only parents pay for schools?
What do you think, as the one advocating a withdrawal of universal healthcare from certain areas on the basis that workers within the NHS can't afford to live there?
Irony....
The irony being that I'm not bothered one way or the other whether a Junior Doctor can afford to live in Fulham or Clapham. It's irrelevant to their argument.
Miss Cyclefree, she said she had no idea why she was appointed Shadow Defence Secretary. Maybe Thornberry and Corbyn's mutual friends recommended her.
Mr. HYUFD, I think that's an exaggeration. Khan, more powerful than Osborne?
Perhaps Osborne is more powerful in policy terms, but Khan certainly would have a larger mandate and of course Cameron could replace or move Osborne at any time, Khan stays in place
Is there no subject you are not qualified to talk rubbish on?
According to the ST our new Shadow Defence Secretary spoke at rallies with Hamas representatives.
The Bucket women just get worse and worse...
Hyacinth's appointment shows how low down the pecking order defence would be in a Corbyn government. I suspect she would spend all her time trying to stop the Cabinet nicking her entire departmental budget.
"Of, c'mon, we need to keep on at least two Guardsmen for the tourist snaps outside Buckingham - er, I mean, the Peoples' - Palace...."
But to get the two guards you'd need at least a dozen, as they would be only allowed to work five hours a day, four days a week, have 10 weeks' annual leave, two days off in lieu of Sundays and holidays, and would all retire at 50.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions.
Err, and subsidised cheap labour (tax credits, housing benefit, etc) oh and educated labour (schooling of their workforce)...
As well as roads, street lighting, healthcare for their employees etc
But I do think corporation taxes could and should be lower. As little or less than Ireland ideally.
I would abolish corporation tax altogether. No point in taxing something (eg a corporation) that can move. Tax stuff that can't move or won't move easily or has a clear location of occurrence - eg land & property (based on its value/rentable value), sales (...or purchases...) of goods and services, and personal income. I would replace pretty much all our existing taxes (including duties and council tax) with three or four taxes based on those three areas of activity/existence.
The problem with that is that people would allow profits to accrue in a business and then liquidate the business. This would turn income into capital gains.
Mr. Meeks, that makes me wonder: is it better for both Labour and the Conservatives if their own candidate were to lose?
For Labour, Khan helps keep Corbyn in place and could provoke a by-election (win keeps Corbyn steady, lose is bad PR for Labour).
For the Conservatives, Goldsmith could abandon the party tag if Heathrow goes ahead and may campaign against them in Richmond if the decision is made before the by-election is done.
According to the ST our new Shadow Defence Secretary spoke at rallies with Hamas representatives.
The Bucket women just get worse and worse...
Hyacinth's appointment shows how low down the pecking order defence would be in a Corbyn government. I suspect she would spend all her time trying to stop the Cabinet nicking her entire departmental budget.
"Of, c'mon, we need to keep on at least two Guardsmen for the tourist snaps outside Buckingham - er, I mean, the Peoples' - Palace...."
Back in the real world it is the Conservatives slashing the armed forces (20,000 soldiers axed already) while Labour debates what decision it would like to have made about Trident if it had actually won the election.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
In what sense have the mayors of london disappeared afterwards? Boris will be doing all he can to challenge for leadership of his party and Ken is never off the news (so still doing PR, granted) and mooted by some (!) for a return to the Commons should Khan win. I don't think it is a powerful position (visible, and thus some level of influence, but in itself, no) though.
'Another quango chief needing a large slap with Mr Dancer's enormo-haddock.'
Now the tories have a majority they can perhaps work harder against labour's vast placeman army that makes initiatives such as this and the witch hunt of our soldiers.
Another one with his head up his orifice, what about their army of placemen and hangers on. neither want to upset the applecart as they are just cheeks of the same money grubbing arse.
Out of interest, Malcolm, do you think that the boundary between England and Scotland is in the right place (it was a good deal further south in times gone by)?
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
The thing is, even if Corbyn resigns or is toppled, the leadership election rules remain the same, as does the membership (which may have moved even further to the left since the glorious summer of 2015!) and so his successor will likely be not much different...
If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
The leader of the opposition is the person who can command the support of the second largest number of MPs in Parliament NOT the person who can command the support of their party's membership and that is just as big a problem for Corbyn as it was for IDS. If Corbyn was running for president and had just won his party's presidential nomination he would be there until the general election but because his office is in the gift of MPs Labour MPs could easily pick someone else to lead the parliamentary party, it maybe Corbyn finds a way to remain leader of the party in the country but leading a group of Trotskyites is never going to win Labour an election anyway so MPs may feel they have to take the risk! It is only worth it in my view if Labour start to lose by-elections to UKIP in which case a coup makes sense given the electoral disaster Labour faces anyway if they keep Corbyn in place
Regarding Cameron resigning after a Leave win, I suspect public opinion would prefer him to stay (vs likely Outer replacements) and that hypothetical what-if-X-was-leader-instead polls will favour him (unless Boris is the other option).
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
In what sense have the mayors of london disappeared afterwards? Boris will be doing all he can to challenge for leadership of his party and Ken is never off the news (so still doing PR, granted) and mooted by some (!) for a return to the Commons should Khan win. I don't think it is a powerful position (visible, and thus some level of influence, but in itself, no) though.
Yes, the only ex-mayor to date has not been noted for invisibility (oh please!)
Speaking of which, seen some tweets by journalists about how we *must* airdrop food to starving Syrians [fair enough from a moral perspective], but the practical problem is laid out here: https://twitter.com/Itwitius/status/685941416456024066
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
Di Caprio is best-priced 1/4 for the Oscars.
Yes looking forward to seeing the Revenant next weekend
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions.
Err, and subsidised cheap labour (tax credits, housing benefit, etc) oh and educated labour (schooling of their workforce)...
As well as roads, street lighting, healthcare for their employees etc
But I do think corporation taxes could and should be lower. As little or less than Ireland ideally.
I would abolish corporation tax altogether. No point in taxing something (eg a corporation) that can move. Tax stuff that can't move or won't move easily or has a clear location of occurrence - eg land & property (based on its value/rentable value), sales (...or purchases...) of goods and services, and personal income. I would replace pretty much all our existing taxes (including duties and council tax) with three or four taxes based on those three areas of activity/existence.
The problem with that is that people would allow profits to accrue in a business and then liquidate the business. This would turn income into capital gains.
And there's another disadvantage to having only a few sources of taxation - a mixture of tax sources gives more protection against shocks.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
Being Mayor of a global city like London is a major role, indeed there are more people who live in Greater London than the whole of Scotland!
Am I supposed to be impressed that people are packed like sardines in a concrete jungle.
According to the ST our new Shadow Defence Secretary spoke at rallies with Hamas representatives.
The Bucket women just get worse and worse...
Hyacinth's appointment shows how low down the pecking order defence would be in a Corbyn government. I suspect she would spend all her time trying to stop the Cabinet nicking her entire departmental budget.
"Of, c'mon, we need to keep on at least two Guardsmen for the tourist snaps outside Buckingham - er, I mean, the Peoples' - Palace...."
But to get the two guards you'd need at least a dozen, as they would be only allowed to work five hours a day, four days a week, have 10 weeks' annual leave, two days off in lieu of Sundays and holidays, and would all retire at 50.
Are there any guards over the age of 50? Will there be more than 50 guards left after the government's defence cuts?
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
snip
The thing is, even if Corbyn resigns or is toppled, the leadership election rules remain the same, as does the membership (which may have moved even further to the left since the glorious summer of 2015!) and so his successor will likely be not much different... If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
Assuming a new ballot with for whatever reason no Corbyn on the ticket then it seems likely the PLP would not nominate any Corbyn substitute. Who would be the most dumb-assed lefty that would satisfy PLP and membership? However, Corbyn is not going anywhere and indeed the gossip suggests that the shadow cabinet is going to be sidelined by the NEC. Such a policy leads in only one direction, the PLP being transmogrified over time into Corbyn lookalikes. 'Hard Right' being replaced by Hard Left.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
In what sense have the mayors of london disappeared afterwards? Boris will be doing all he can to challenge for leadership of his party and Ken is never off the news (so still doing PR, granted) and mooted by some (!) for a return to the Commons should Khan win. I don't think it is a powerful position (visible, and thus some level of influence, but in itself, no) though.
Both are like relics from the the wheeltappers and shunters club. Bit like having Bruce Forsyth or Ken Dodd on stage.
Corporations pay taxes without receiving benefits, except defence and a few police functions.
Err, and subsidised cheap labour (tax credits, housing benefit, etc) oh and educated labour (schooling of their workforce)...
As well as roads, street lighting, healthcare for their employees etc
But I do think corporation taxes could and should be lower. As little or less than Ireland ideally.
I would abolish corporation tax altogether. No point in taxing something (eg a corporation) that can move. Tax stuff that can't move or won't move easily or has a clear location of occurrence - eg land & property (based on its value/rentable value), sales (...or purchases...) of goods and services, and personal income. I would replace pretty much all our existing taxes (including duties and council tax) with three or four taxes based on those three areas of activity/existence.
The problem with that is that people would allow profits to accrue in a business and then liquidate the business. This would turn income into capital gains.
Corporations would still pay tax - for example because of land or property their own (or if they rent, their landlords would pass down the cost). Taking money/assets out of a corporation and into personal ownership would be classed as "income" and be taxed accordingly.
I would argue the opposite - whereas 10 years ago a liberal conservative (like me!) would have to chose between the Lib Dems, the Tories or New Labour (in that order, perhaps, until the election of DC) now there is a clear choice of which party to join or support if you are of a centrist/liberal conservative tendency.
The choice of next Tory party leader will be crucial and I hope that it will be someone on the liberal/centrist/'one nation' end of party spectrum... I will of course be voting in the election and will probably vote for the 'one nation' candidate (I suspect the final two - for the membership to chose from - will be one from the 'one nation' camp and one from the right/more conservative end of the party). A 'one nation' leader of the party in 2020 - with the Lib Dems finished, Labour split and lead by a lefty-loon (be it JC or his successor), and UKIP in their post-referendum "what is the point of our party now" stage - will sweep to power with a healthy majority. Especially if the boundary changes go through.
In short, the Conservative party will (hopefully - but I think quite likely) increasingly become a broad church, spreading from the centre to the right, encompassing many liberals (of the classic meaning, not the socialist sort of course)... the idea of a new centrist party (made up of non-Corbynista Labour MPs and the Lib Dems) is a nice idea, but doesn't seem like happening due to massive inertia. (I don't think it has sunk in yet with many Labour MPs how their party is being fundamentally altered beneath their Parliamentary feet..!) Post-2020 may be a different story though.
I also hope the Tories will double down on the liberal-conservative angle. If they did I would probably become an enthusiastic rather than reluctant supporter. However I really doubt it will happen. Liberal conservatives are thin on the ground in the shires, so far as I can see.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
Being Mayor of a global city like London is a major role, indeed there are more people who live in Greater London than the whole of Scotland!
Am I supposed to be impressed that people are packed like sardines in a concrete jungle.
Why can't Scotland attract immigrants? Of all the UK, Scotland, is the most in need. For genetic (see current appallingly low life expectancy rates) and financial reasons.
'Another quango chief needing a large slap with Mr Dancer's enormo-haddock.'
Now the tories have a majority they can perhaps work harder against labour's vast placeman army that makes initiatives such as this and the witch hunt of our soldiers.
Another one with his head up his orifice, what about their army of placemen and hangers on. neither want to upset the applecart as they are just cheeks of the same money grubbing arse.
Out of interest, Malcolm, do you think that the boundary between England and Scotland is in the right place (it was a good deal further south in times gone by)?
Innocent , no beef either way. I suspect that some parts just south of the border would also like to be out of the clutches of London control though. Neither Scotland or Northern England will ever prosper whilst London sucks the life blood out of them and stunts their growth and initiative. In days gone by they did try to share things , have some autonomy but London under the current effete elite is just sucking the rest dry.
- I think the thread puts a good idea. I expect to be supporting Corbyn for as long as he wants to be leader (and I don't agree that "Power is everything"), but if a bus or a general election defeat were to intervene, I can see Khan as a possible leader: he has managed to combine being open to traditionally non-Labour groups with not burning his bridges with the left like some of the rebels. He's also notably serious, which isn't always an advantage (look how far Boris has got by being the opposite), but if it followed a long unsettled period it would be preferable.
- Being an MP is a bottomless pit of work if you're willing to do it - 70-80 hours a week are common - but because they're only scrutinised every 5 years some MPs get away with doing very little and pursuing other interests too. I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff. Irritatingly, he did just as well in elections as the workaholics. And Boris is of course an example of doing both.
- London politics is much, much more POLITICAL. Even the people I know on the hard left and far right in Broxtowe are quite mild-mannered people with hinterlands and diverse interests who just have quite definite views on politics when the subject comes up. You don't see any "never kissed a Tory" buttons, and when I chatted about my communist past it was met with friendly curiosity even by Tories. I offered to come and be grilled one a month by my CLP General Committee - they told me not to bother, it'd mean meeting on Fridays, and members were too busy with non-political stuff. In London, I often meet people who seem to live for politics and who are indignant about different opinions on anything.
- Charles asked me to clarify something on the last thread, but due I think to the vagaries of the "reply" function it isn't clear what. Please resend :-).
You said that some Tories weren't comfortable with Zac because he is viewed as not being "one of us"
As that is a phrase that was historically used by English anti-semites to describe why they didn't like Jews, I thought you shoudl clarify whether you actually intended to imply that the Tories were shot through with anti-semitism or not. I am sure you didn't mean to smear them like that.
Ps about to fly to the US so don't be offended if I don't reply...
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
Being Mayor of a global city like London is a major role, indeed there are more people who live in Greater London than the whole of Scotland!
Am I supposed to be impressed that people are packed like sardines in a concrete jungle.
Why can't Scotland attract immigrants? Of all the UK, Scotland, is the most in need. For genetic (see current appallingly low life expectancy rates) and financial reasons.
Liberal conservatives are thin on the ground in the shires, so far as I can see.
I wouldn't say that! The great thing about many (if not most) of the English and Welsh "shires" is that politics is largely dominated by liberals and conservatives, and various mixings of those two ideologies, with the Lib Dems and Tory parties enjoying the lion's share of council seats, MPs, etc.
I think at the moment many liberal conservatives in the shires are still with the Lib Dems and don't identify themselves with the Conservative party, perhaps because the local Conservative association is too right wing/traditionally conservative.
But of course all it takes is for more liberal-minded people to join the Conservative party and in time it will change.
'Another quango chief needing a large slap with Mr Dancer's enormo-haddock.'
Now the tories have a majority they can perhaps work harder against labour's vast placeman army that makes initiatives such as this and the witch hunt of our soldiers.
Another one with his head up his orifice, what about their army of placemen and hangers on. neither want to upset the applecart as they are just cheeks of the same money grubbing arse.
Out of interest, Malcolm, do you think that the boundary between England and Scotland is in the right place (it was a good deal further south in times gone by)?
Innocent , no beef either way. I suspect that some parts just south of the border would also like to be out of the clutches of London control though. Neither Scotland or Northern England will ever prosper whilst London sucks the life blood out of them and stunts their growth and initiative. In days gone by they did try to share things , have some autonomy but London under the current effete elite is just sucking the rest dry.
From that perspective I think Scottish independence would be good news for the English North East as there'd be a perceived need to tie it to the rest of the country with improved transport links etc.
Assuming a new ballot with for whatever reason no Corbyn on the ticket then it seems likely the PLP would not nominate any Corbyn substitute. Who would be the most dumb-assed lefty that would satisfy PLP and membership? However, Corbyn is not going anywhere and indeed the gossip suggests that the shadow cabinet is going to be sidelined by the NEC. Such a policy leads in only one direction, the PLP being transmogrified over time into Corbyn lookalikes. 'Hard Right' being replaced by Hard Left.
Absolutely. If the bulk of Labour MPs leave it too late (ie they've got this year, or the first part of 2017) to take action, then their party will be fundamentally changed by the Corbyn revolution.
They would have to find - as you suggest - a candidate for leadership that is both sensible (ie can win a general election) and would attract the votes of the increasingly left-wing party membership. Good luck with that.. lol
It is increasingly looking like a split will occur, though probably not formally until after the 2020 general election.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
The thing is, even if Corbyn resigns or is toppled, the leadership election rules remain the same, as does the membership (which may have moved even further to the left since the glorious summer of 2015!) and so his successor will likely be not much different...
If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
All I could think of is a stitch-up by the MPs, whereby Corbyn is persuaded to stand down in favour of his chosen successor (say McDonnell) but the MPs refuse to nominate McDonnell at the last minute after Corbyn has tendered his resignation - leaving the party members a choice of Kendall, Jarvis or Benn.
If there was a membership poll [ somehow ], none of the three above will receive more than 5% of the votes.
It would still be Burnham, Cooper, maybe Khan post-May. But , of the current crop, Tom Watson stands the best chance.
But Harriet would win any election hands down. Of course, her age comes into the question though she has not announced her retirement from 2020 yet.
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
But once you're arguing detail, you're losing.
As you rightly say, Labour probably won't lose 'hundreds' of seats because it's a relatively small cohort of councillors being elected this year. All the same, they will almost certainly lose seats on a net basis, with UKIP, Con and LD all likely to make gains. Whatever the reasons, that doesn't look good.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
Being Mayor of a global city like London is a major role, indeed there are more people who live in Greater London than the whole of Scotland!
Am I supposed to be impressed that people are packed like sardines in a concrete jungle.
Why can't Scotland attract immigrants? Of all the UK, Scotland, is the most in need. For genetic (see current appallingly low life expectancy rates) and financial reasons.
More jobs , money and benefits in London.
More jobs, true. A stronger, more successful, economy than Scotland.
More money, true. A stronger, more successful, economy than Scotland.
More benefits, I'll take your word for it that Scotland treats the poor worse than England.
Trump leads by a very healthy margin, Rubio if anything slipping.
Only the Iowa Caucus can change things, and that's a straight Cruz/Trump race.
So I think 2.25 on Trump (PP/SkyBet) is clear value.
Cruz at 11 (PP - much shorter elsewhere) is a personal hedge, in case Trump implodes after losing Iowa (the poll Mike linked shows Cruz takes the lion's share). I don't really express a strong opinion on that, mind. (Combined = 1.87, greater than I think Trump should be ~1.72).
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
Rallings and Thrasher do.
Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings of Plymouth University, reckon that once we smooth out these factors the figures from post-Corbyn contests portend a one point Conservative lead, of 32 per cent to 31 per cent, in May’s local elections. Labour will therefore be down seven or eight per cent on 2012, and might stand to lose around 200 council seats – good corroboration, if and when this happens, for our opinion poll findings.
'Another quango chief needing a large slap with Mr Dancer's enormo-haddock.'
Now the tories have a majority they can perhaps work harder against labour's vast placeman army that makes initiatives such as this and the witch hunt of our soldiers.
Another one with his head up his orifice, what about their army of placemen and hangers on. neither want to upset the applecart as they are just cheeks of the same money grubbing arse.
Out of interest, Malcolm, do you think that the boundary between England and Scotland is in the right place (it was a good deal further south in times gone by)?
Innocent , no beef either way. I suspect that some parts just south of the border would also like to be out of the clutches of London control though. Neither Scotland or Northern England will ever prosper whilst London sucks the life blood out of them and stunts their growth and initiative. In days gone by they did try to share things , have some autonomy but London under the current effete elite is just sucking the rest dry.
I'd agree with that. However, the notion (not explicitly stated and perhaps not what you meant), that some parts of northern England would rather be in Scotland is as fanciful as the idea put forward by some last year that the Borders would opt to stay in the UK had Scotland voted Yes. For all the resentment at London, England is England.
- I think the thread puts a good idea. I expect to be supporting Corbyn for as long as he wants to be leader (and I don't agree that "Power is everything"), but if a bus or a general election defeat were to intervene, I can see Khan as a possible leader: he has managed to combine being open to traditionally non-Labour groups with not burning his bridges with the left like some of the rebels. He's also notably serious, which isn't always an advantage (look how far Boris has got by being the opposite), but if it followed a long unsettled period it would be preferable.
- Being an MP is a bottomless pit of work if you're willing to do it - 70-80 hours a week are common - but because they're only scrutinised every 5 years some MPs get away with doing very little and pursuing other interests too. I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff. Irritatingly, he did just as well in elections as the workaholics. And Boris is of course an example of doing both.
- London politics is much, much more POLITICAL. Even the people I know on the hard left and far right in Broxtowe are quite mild-mannered people with hinterlands and diverse interests who just have quite definite views on politics when the subject comes up. You don't see any "never kissed a Tory" buttons, and when I chatted about my communist past it was met with friendly curiosity even by Tories. I offered to come and be grilled one a month by my CLP General Committee - they told me not to bother, it'd mean meeting on Fridays, and members were too busy with non-political stuff. In London, I often meet people who seem to live for politics and who are indignant about different opinions on anything.
- Charles asked me to clarify something on the last thread, but due I think to the vagaries of the "reply" function it isn't clear what. Please resend :-).
You said that some Tories weren't comfortable with Zac because he is viewed as not being "one of us"
As that is a phrase that was historically used by English anti-semites to describe why they didn't like Jews, I thought you shoudl clarify whether you actually intended to imply that the Tories were shot through with anti-semitism or not. I am sure you didn't mean to smear them like that.
Ps about to fly to the US so don't be offended if I don't reply...
Plenty of Tories on here have expressed reservations about Goldsmith because of his obsessive green tendencies and other policy reasons I think was the point.
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
Rallings and Thrasher do.
Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings of Plymouth University, reckon that once we smooth out these factors the figures from post-Corbyn contests portend a one point Conservative lead, of 32 per cent to 31 per cent, in May’s local elections. Labour will therefore be down seven or eight per cent on 2012, and might stand to lose around 200 council seats – good corroboration, if and when this happens, for our opinion poll findings.
' I wasn't particularly enthusiastic, having wasted far too much of my time in New Hampshire on campaign events, going all the way back to the oxymoronic "Dole rallies" of 1996.
One couple were there because they were tootling along with a Trump sticker on the back of the car (something of a rare sight in Vermont) and at the stop sign an appreciative campaign staffer behind had leaped out and offered them VIP tickets. He was introduced on stage by Deb Billado, the Chittenden County chair for the Vermont Republican Party (Chittenden is the state's most populous county - and the most Ben & Jerrified), and prowling the aisles you could spot the occasional New Hampshire state rep. So if, as some of the dottier rumors suggest, the Republican establishment is planning to run third-party if Trump gets the nomination, it's not clear how much of the state apparatus they'll be taking with them. "If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be," declares Michael Gerson. The state legislators and volunteers present on Thursday would disagree.
Trump has no prompters. He walks out, pulls a couple of pieces of folded paper from his pocket, and then starts talking. I've seen no end of really mediocre shows at the Flynn in the last quarter-century, and I would have to account this the best night's entertainment I've had there with the exception of the great jazz singer Dianne Reeves a few years back. Had Mitt campaigned like this, he'd be president. But he had no ability to connect with voters. Nor does Jeb ("I've been endorsed by another 27 has-beens") Bush.
Halfway through, he detoured into an aside about how he was now having to go around in an armored car, and how many rounds it could take before the window disintegrated, and how the security guys shove you in and let the reinforced door slam you in the ass. And the thing's ugly as hell. "If I win," sighed Trump, "I'll never ride in a Rolls-Royce ever again." And all around me guys who drive Chevy Silverados and women who drive Honda Civics roared with laughter. Usually, a candidate claims, like Clinton, to feel our pain, but, just for a moment there, we felt Trump's.
f the national GOP is a vehicle for ensuring that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have a car and driver and a Gulf emir-sized retinue, then it's very effective. If it's a vehicle for advancing conservative principles, then it's a rusted-up lemon on cinder blocks. For many conservative voters, 2014 was the GOP's last chance, and they blew it. For those conservative voters whose priority is immigration, 2016 is America's last chance, and Trump's the only reason anyone's even talking about that.' http://www.steynonline.com/7408/notes-on-a-phenomenon
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
Being Mayor of a global city like London is a major role, indeed there are more people who live in Greater London than the whole of Scotland!
Am I supposed to be impressed that people are packed like sardines in a concrete jungle.
No. But it is worth considering that the Mayor of London is a role that is comparable to being the President of a small(ish) country.
Liberal conservatives are thin on the ground in the shires, so far as I can see.
I wouldn't say that! The great thing about many (if not most) of the English and Welsh "shires" is that politics is largely dominated by liberals and conservatives, and various mixings of those two ideologies, with the Lib Dems and Tory parties enjoying the lion's share of council seats, MPs, etc.
I think at the moment many liberal conservatives in the shires are still with the Lib Dems and don't identify themselves with the Conservative party, perhaps because the local Conservative association is too right wing/traditionally conservative.
But of course all it takes is for more liberal-minded people to join the Conservative party and in time it will change.
I tend to think a lot of people in the shires are liberal conservatives, at least here in the West Country. I think one reason the Tory strategy in the SW was as successful as it was, was because while the LDs lost votes from those who did not like them palling up to the Tories, they also lost votes from those LD voters who were liberal conservative types and Cameron, through his actions as working in a coalition with the LDs (and criticised in some quarters for preferring it to a majority dependent on his own right wing), was therefore seen as a good choice and the Tories under him the better option for those who saw themselves as liberal-ish.
Assuming a new ballot with for whatever reason no Corbyn on the ticket then it seems likely the PLP would not nominate any Corbyn substitute. Who would be the most dumb-assed lefty that would satisfy PLP and membership? However, Corbyn is not going anywhere and indeed the gossip suggests that the shadow cabinet is going to be sidelined by the NEC. Such a policy leads in only one direction, the PLP being transmogrified over time into Corbyn lookalikes. 'Hard Right' being replaced by Hard Left.
Absolutely. If the bulk of Labour MPs leave it too late (ie they've got this year, or the first part of 2017) to take action, then their party will be fundamentally changed by the Corbyn revolution.
They would have to find - as you suggest - a candidate for leadership that is both sensible (ie can win a general election) and would attract the votes of the increasingly left-wing party membership. Good luck with that.. lol
It is increasingly looking like a split will occur, though probably not formally until after the 2020 general election.
The only way a split could succeed electorally is if a critical mass of Labour MPs split all at once. The mass has to be high, at least, 150 who immediately has to target the party left behind as "extremists". It cannot be later than summer 2017. Better summer 2016.
The critical number is 117. The new party then becomes the "Official Opposition"
The whole scenario is unlikely, very unlikely. It also has to evoke a "liberal" tone [ Charlie Kennedy type ] to keep or even take the lost liberals.
If the number who splits is less than 50, then it will have the same effect as the SDP. Both parties will lose.
The Green vote will not come in the beginning. Also many Northern MPs may not come into the new party, thereby allowing UKIP about 20 seats. It also means Labour will regain very few Scottish seats in 2020.
If Khan becomes Mayor of London he will be the second most powerful person in the country, he is not going to be able to do that job and leader of the opposition and I doubt he would want to, especially immediately post defeat. Even Boris served two terms, so Khan would unlikely be available about 2023/24 anyway
LOL, you must be barking if you think that. A PR roll for buffoons who fill their pockets and disappear afterwards.
In what sense have the mayors of london disappeared afterwards? Boris will be doing all he can to challenge for leadership of his party and Ken is never off the news (so still doing PR, granted) and mooted by some (!) for a return to the Commons should Khan win. I don't think it is a powerful position (visible, and thus some level of influence, but in itself, no) though.
Both are like relics from the the wheeltappers and shunters club. Bit like having Bruce Forsyth or Ken Dodd on stage.
Ken appears to the unofficial deputy leader of the Labour party at the moment.
Boris is a fairish bet to become the next leader of the Conservative party.
If that is becoming a relic, then I think there are many politicians around the world who would queue up to be relics.
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
Rallings and Thrasher do.
Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings of Plymouth University, reckon that once we smooth out these factors the figures from post-Corbyn contests portend a one point Conservative lead, of 32 per cent to 31 per cent, in May’s local elections. Labour will therefore be down seven or eight per cent on 2012, and might stand to lose around 200 council seats – good corroboration, if and when this happens, for our opinion poll findings.
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
Rallings and Thrasher do.
Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings of Plymouth University, reckon that once we smooth out these factors the figures from post-Corbyn contests portend a one point Conservative lead, of 32 per cent to 31 per cent, in May’s local elections. Labour will therefore be down seven or eight per cent on 2012, and might stand to lose around 200 council seats – good corroboration, if and when this happens, for our opinion poll findings.
With the greatest of respect, I'd trust Rallings and Thrasher's figures over anyone else's figures.
Around 200 is not greatly different to my 100-150 and should not be misinterpreted by you as many hundreds . As I point out the all out elections in a number of councils will make a comparison with 2012 not possible and gains/losses not calculable
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
But once you're arguing detail, you're losing.
As you rightly say, Labour probably won't lose 'hundreds' of seats because it's a relatively small cohort of councillors being elected this year. All the same, they will almost certainly lose seats on a net basis, with UKIP, Con and LD all likely to make gains. Whatever the reasons, that doesn't look good.
So without a disaster in both locals and the london mayoralty, Corbyn is safe, presumably. A lot of people are expecting hundreds of losses because that's what you expect from a party doing poorly, whether that is reasonable ornot based on the actual contests that are taking place, so they have actually played the expectations game well. 'Corbyn does surprisingly well' headlines to come perhaps.
Honestly I would like to see Labour m ake some gains, it would confuse so many people.
While that's almost certainly true, I think you need to remember that Trump appeals to male, working class Democrats rather more than Hillary does.
Yes it depends on how many suburbanites he loses and how many white working class Democrats he gains (though many of those will have voted for Romney-Ryan anyway)
- I think the thread puts a good idea. I expect to be supporting Corbyn for as long as he wants to be leader (and I don't agree that "Power is everything"), but if a bus or a general election defeat were to intervene, I can see Khan as a possible leader: he has managed to combine being open to traditionally non-Labour groups with not burning his bridges with the left like some of the rebels. He's also notably serious, which isn't always an advantage (look how far Boris has got by being the opposite), but if it followed a long unsettled period it would be preferable.
- Being an MP is a bottomless pit of work if you're willing to do it - 70-80 hours a week are common - but because they're only scrutinised every 5 years some MPs get away with doing very little and pursuing other interests too. I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff. Irritatingly, he did just as well in elections as the workaholics. And Boris is of course an example of doing both.
- London politics is much, much more POLITICAL. Even the people I know on the hard left and far right in Broxtowe are quite mild-mannered people with hinterlands and diverse interests who just have quite definite views on politics when the subject comes up. You don't see any "never kissed a Tory" buttons, and when I chatted about my communist past it was met with friendly curiosity even by Tories. I offered to come and be grilled one a month by my CLP General Committee - they told me not to bother, it'd mean meeting on Fridays, and members were too busy with non-political stuff. In London, I often meet people who seem to live for politics and who are indignant about different opinions on anything.
- Charles asked me to clarify something on the last thread, but due I think to the vagaries of the "reply" function it isn't clear what. Please resend :-).
You said that some Tories weren't comfortable with Zac because he is viewed as not being "one of us"
As that is a phrase that was historically used by English anti-semites to describe why they didn't like Jews, I thought you shoudl clarify whether you actually intended to imply that the Tories were shot through with anti-semitism or not. I am sure you didn't mean to smear them like that.
Ps about to fly to the US so don't be offended if I don't reply...
Plenty of Tories on here have expressed reservations about Goldsmith because of his obsessive green tendencies and other policy reasons I think was the point.
- Being an MP is a bottomless pit of work if you're willing to do it - 70-80 hours a week are common - but because they're only scrutinised every 5 years some MPs get away with doing very little and pursuing other interests too. I knew a chair of a Select Committee who had a thriving private business - he had one aide write all his speeches and another do all his casework, and he simply did the media stuff. Irritatingly, he did just as well in elections as the workaholics. And Boris is of course an example of doing both.
- London politics is much, much more POLITICAL. Even the people I know on the hard left and far right in Broxtowe are quite mild-mannered people with hinterlands and diverse interests who just have quite definite views on politics when the subject comes up. You don't see any "never kissed a Tory" buttons, and when I chatted about my communist past it was met with friendly curiosity even by Tories. I offered to come and be grilled one a month by my CLP General Committee - they told me not to bother, it'd mean meeting on Fridays, and members were too busy with non-political stuff. In London, I often meet people who seem to live for politics and who are indignant about different opinions on anything.
- Charles asked me to clarify something on the last thread, but due I think to the vagaries of the "reply" function it isn't clear what. Please resend :-).
You said that some Tories weren't comfortable with Zac because he is viewed as not being "one of us"
As that is a phrase that was historically used by English anti-semites to describe why they didn't like Jews, I thought you shoudl clarify whether you actually intended to imply that the Tories were shot through with anti-semitism or not. I am sure you didn't mean to smear them like that.
Ps about to fly to the US so don't be offended if I don't reply...
Plenty of Tories on here have expressed reservations about Goldsmith because of his obsessive green tendencies and other policy reasons I think was the point.
Agreed. I thought the comment was due to the fact that he's seen by many Tories as the most dripping wet man in his party, almost Green in his outlook on life - rather than any comment about his Jewishness.
I still think there's room for someone to stand in London (English Democrats perhaps) with a policy of building the 3rd & 4th runways, and introducing driverless Tube trains.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
The thing is, even if Corbyn resigns or is toppled, the leadership election rules remain the same, as does the membership (which may have moved even further to the left since the glorious summer of 2015!) and so his successor will likely be not much different...
If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
All I could think of is a stitch-up by the MPs, whereby Corbyn is persuaded to stand down in favour of his chosen successor (say McDonnell) but the MPs refuse to nominate McDonnell at the last minute after Corbyn has tendered his resignation - leaving the party members a choice of Kendall, Jarvis or Benn.
If there was a membership poll [ somehow ], none of the three above will receive more than 5% of the votes.
It would still be Burnham, Cooper, maybe Khan post-May. But , of the current crop, Tom Watson stands the best chance.
But Harriet would win any election hands down. Of course, her age comes into the question though she has not announced her retirement from 2020 yet.
Labour members would not vote for Harriet after the welfare vote
The only way a split could succeed electorally is if a critical mass of Labour MPs split all at once. The mass has to be high, at least, 150 who immediately has to target the party left behind as "extremists". It cannot be later than summer 2017. Better summer 2016.
The critical number is 117. The new party then becomes the "Official Opposition"
The whole scenario is unlikely, very unlikely. It also has to evoke a "liberal" tone [ Charlie Kennedy type ] to keep or even take the lost liberals.
If the number who splits is less than 50, then it will have the same effect as the SDP. Both parties will lose.
The Green vote will not come in the beginning. Also many Northern MPs may not come into the new party, thereby allowing UKIP about 20 seats. It also means Labour will regain very few Scottish seats in 2020.
If they could get past the 117, however, they would be in business.
Of course they would re-elect him, the Labour membership now is made up largely of Trotskyite entryists.
Many of them deny this though and say they just voted for Corbyn because he was "refreshing" (or whatever). They may be telling the truth. Also, I'm not sure there are several hundred thousand Trotskyists in the UK.
The latest Times poll on this a month or so ago had Corbyn winning almost exactly the same majority with members as in September in any new ballot, as I said there is absolutely no point even launching a challenge to him if the members are consulted, Labour MPs will just have to accept he leads them into the election if that is the case. If they want to get rid of him they will have to find a way to launch a coup to topple him by themselves without consulting the membership, as Tory MPs did when they ousted IDS and replaced him with Michael Howard
The thing is, even if Corbyn resigns or is toppled, the leadership election rules remain the same, as does the membership (which may have moved even further to the left since the glorious summer of 2015!) and so his successor will likely be not much different...
If they do find a way of replacing him as leader without consulting the membership, then expect an actual split in the Labour party (ie actually becoming two political parties) on a Parliamentary-Membership basis, which of course would be terminal.
All I could think of is a stitch-up by the MPs, whereby Corbyn is persuaded to stand down in favour of his chosen successor (say McDonnell) but the MPs refuse to nominate McDonnell at the last minute after Corbyn has tendered his resignation - leaving the party members a choice of Kendall, Jarvis or Benn.
If there was a membership poll [ somehow ], none of the three above will receive more than 5% of the votes.
It would still be Burnham, Cooper, maybe Khan post-May. But , of the current crop, Tom Watson stands the best chance.
But Harriet would win any election hands down. Of course, her age comes into the question though she has not announced her retirement from 2020 yet.
Labour members would not vote for Harriet after the welfare vote
Who expects Labour to lose hundreds of councillors next May ? . Those who do have not looked at the elections being fought in May and compared them to those fought previously in 2012 and before that in 2008 . In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum. In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year . A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses . In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
Rallings and Thrasher do.
Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings of Plymouth University, reckon that once we smooth out these factors the figures from post-Corbyn contests portend a one point Conservative lead, of 32 per cent to 31 per cent, in May’s local elections. Labour will therefore be down seven or eight per cent on 2012, and might stand to lose around 200 council seats – good corroboration, if and when this happens, for our opinion poll findings.
With the greatest of respect, I'd trust Rallings and Thrasher's figures over anyone else's figures.
Around 200 is not greatly different to my 100-150 and should not be misinterpreted by you as many hundreds . As I point out the all out elections in a number of councils will make a comparison with 2012 not possible and gains/losses not calculable
I never said many hundreds. I just said hundreds.
But the point is that Corbynites will see a prime example of the electoral unattractiveness of their man.
Cameron on Marr said he is hopeful of a renegotiation but if it is an Out vote he will have to work with that. Jeremy Corbyn and Leonardo Di Caprio on next week.
I've never understood why Cameron should be expected to resign if Leave wins. If Leave wins, then it means a very clear majority of Conservative voters will have voted that way.
If Cameron leads Remain, as is likely, and it is an Out vote his position and that of Osborne will be almost untenable, he would almost certainly resign anyway and be replaced by a leading Tory Outer
No it wouldn't. Cameron would simply negotiate to take us into the EEA.
Given he had just spent the last few months campaigning for the EU he would hardly be best placed to negotiate the UK's withdrawal from it even if it did join the EEA
~THE PROTESTS: On the closed block of Main Street outside the Flynn Theatre there was something of a carnival atmosphere. On the south side the thousands of Trump supporters snaked down the sidewalk and round the corner. On the north side the hundreds of protesters waved the usual signs: "DUMP TRUMP", "TRUMPISM IS FASCISM", "TRUMP: AMERICAN IDIOT", etc. Marginally more inventive were "TRUMP IS THE REAL TERRORIST" and the elliptical "TRUMP - THE OTHER WHITE MEAT". My older boy ran into high-school pals who were variously there to attend the rally and there to protest it. The media like to play up the anti-Trump demonstrations, but even this works to his benefit, since they come almost exclusively from the leaden clichés of college-debt social justice. For a six-year bachelor's degree in orientation studies, you'd think these fellows could work up something other than chants that were stale back when Pete Seeger was wondering where all the flowers went.
' I wasn't particularly enthusiastic, having wasted far too much of my time in New Hampshire on campaign events, going all the way back to the oxymoronic "Dole rallies" of 1996.
One couple were there because they were tootling along with a Trump sticker on the back of the car (something of a rare sight in Vermont) and at the stop sign an appreciative campaign staffer behind had leaped out and offered them VIP tickets. He was introduced on stage by Deb Billado, the Chittenden County chair for the Vermont Republican Party (Chittenden is the state's most populous county - and the most Ben & Jerrified), and prowling the aisles you could spot the occasional New Hampshire state rep. So if, as some of the dottier rumors suggest, the Republican establishment is planning to run third-party if Trump gets the nomination, it's not clear how much of the state apparatus they'll be taking with them. "If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be," declares Michael Gerson. The state legislators and volunteers present on Thursday would disagree.
Trump has no prompters. He walks out, pulls a couple of pieces of folded paper from his pocket, and then starts talking. I've seen no end of really mediocre shows at the Flynn in the last quarter-century, and I would have to account this the best night's entertainment I've had there with the exception of the great jazz singer Dianne Reeves a few years back. Had Mitt campaigned like this, he'd be president. But he had no ability to connect with voters. Nor does Jeb ("I've been endorsed by another 27 has-beens") Bush.
The Junior Doctors lost me irrevocably when one of their reps appeared on TV demanding that in his early 30s his potential salary of £52k, combined with his partner - also a Junior Doc - who could also earn similarly, did not have enough to live and bring up one toddler in London. They don't know that they are born, or that they don't have a natural right to live in Zone 1 or 2.
In my view they are now just another monopoly producer lobby wanting a bigger slice of the cake. The best comparison imo would be Tube Drivers. Essential service = strong position, in theory.
That they have got themselves tangled up with anti-austerity / Peoples' Assembly / Socialist Worker types is quite a large shot in their own foot.
That the members of the BMA are electing fruitcakes who can't tell the difference between Goebbels and the UK in in the 21C to their national committees, suggests that there are deeper problems.
PS I am on Sadiq Khan at 1000:1 to be next PM in my Mad As A Hatter portfolio. For £2. Still don't see it happening !
Perhaps we should withdraw the NHS from zones 1 and 2, since doctors can't afford to live there anyway.
Heard of the Tube? Junior doctors can easily afford to commute from zones 3 to 6 to central London, if they are consultants or partners in a GP practice they may even be able to buy in zones 1 and 2
That's a given since many earn far, far more than the majority of the poor saps coughing up taxes to fund their salaries.
~THE PROTESTS: On the closed block of Main Street outside the Flynn Theatre there was something of a carnival atmosphere. On the south side the thousands of Trump supporters snaked down the sidewalk and round the corner. On the north side the hundreds of protesters waved the usual signs: "DUMP TRUMP", "TRUMPISM IS FASCISM", "TRUMP: AMERICAN IDIOT", etc. Marginally more inventive were "TRUMP IS THE REAL TERRORIST" and the elliptical "TRUMP - THE OTHER WHITE MEAT". My older boy ran into high-school pals who were variously there to attend the rally and there to protest it. The media like to play up the anti-Trump demonstrations, but even this works to his benefit, since they come almost exclusively from the leaden clichés of college-debt social justice. For a six-year bachelor's degree in orientation studies, you'd think these fellows could work up something other than chants that were stale back when Pete Seeger was wondering where all the flowers went.
' I wasn't particularly enthusiastic, having wasted far too much of my time in New Hampshire on campaign events, going all the way back to the oxymoronic "Dole rallies" of 1996.
One couple were there because they were tootling along with a Trump sticker on the back of the car (something of a rare sight in Vermont) and at the stop sign an appreciative campaign staffer behind had leaped out and offered them VIP tickets. He was introduced on stage by Deb Billado, the Chittenden County chair for the Vermont Republican Party (Chittenden is the state's most populous county - and the most Ben & Jerrified), and prowling the aisles you could spot the occasional New Hampshire state rep. So if, as some of the dottier rumors suggest, the Republican establishment is planning to run third-party if Trump gets the nomination, it's not clear how much of the state apparatus they'll be taking with them. "If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be," declares Michael Gerson. The state legislators and volunteers present on Thursday would disagree.
Trump has no prompters. He walks out, pulls a couple of pieces of folded paper from his pocket, and then starts talking. I've seen no end of really mediocre shows at the Flynn in the last quarter-century, and I would have to account this the best night's entertainment I've had there with the exception of the great jazz singer Dianne Reeves a few years back. Had Mitt campaigned like this, he'd be president. But he had no ability to connect with voters. Nor does Jeb ("I've been endorsed by another 27 has-beens") Bush.
Comments
Now the tories have a majority they can perhaps work harder against labour's vast placeman army that makes initiatives such as this and the witch hunt of our soldiers.
But I do think corporation taxes could and should be lower. As little or less than Ireland ideally.
Compare to BBC, who are full on Stage III now.
"Of, c'mon, we need to keep on at least two Guardsmen for the tourist snaps outside Buckingham - er, I mean, the Peoples' - Palace...."
I think the official line is he took a sabbatical. No idea why. Damned shame. He was to foreign affairs what Andrew Neil is to politics.
Mr. Taffys, they should.
33/1 are good odds for all that.
And that article is again good, unlike the tripe on BBC / Guardian, which is full on Stage III'ing now. Every article is now but but but think of the backlash, but but but this is what ISIS want.
Post Edited: Alison McGovern quits policy review group over leadership dispute https://t.co/OSSa14keR2
For Labour, Khan helps keep Corbyn in place and could provoke a by-election (win keeps Corbyn steady, lose is bad PR for Labour).
For the Conservatives, Goldsmith could abandon the party tag if Heathrow goes ahead and may campaign against them in Richmond if the decision is made before the by-election is done.
Mr. Flightpath, steady on, old bean. I disagree with Mr. HYUFD on the power point, but there's no need to be uncivil.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Abroad, it's also been further north.
https://twitter.com/Itwitius/status/685941416456024066
However, Corbyn is not going anywhere and indeed the gossip suggests that the shadow cabinet is going to be sidelined by the NEC. Such a policy leads in only one direction, the PLP being transmogrified over time into Corbyn lookalikes. 'Hard Right' being replaced by Hard Left.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/09/vote-for-trump-never-some-iowa-republicans-say/78553442/
Please put down the coffee.
As that is a phrase that was historically used by English anti-semites to describe why they didn't like Jews, I thought you shoudl clarify whether you actually intended to imply that the Tories were shot through with anti-semitism or not. I am sure you didn't mean to smear them like that.
Ps about to fly to the US so don't be offended if I don't reply...
In 2012 Labour gained around 500 seats in England compared to 2008 . They will likely lose some of these gains but current NV forecasts compared to those in 2008 and 2012 would put those losses at 100 to 150 maximum.
In addition some councils which had local elections in 2008/2012 have moved to elections every 4 years and will not have elections this year .
A number of councils are having all out elections this year on new boundaries . In some of these figures for gains/losses will be meaningless . Take for example Winchester . Currently
Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 all seats up on new boundaries with 12 fewer seats , Likely forecast is currently Con 25 LD 20 Lab 0 ( the Labour ward is dismembered ) so net changes Con -8 LD and Lab -2 each but the changes cant be expressed as gains/losses .
In those councils having all out elections some of the seats up will have been fought in May 2015 so Labour will do better and the Conservatives worse in this proportion of the seats . For example Rochford may well see Labour increase their councillors from 2 to 3 as they win all 3 seats up in the 1 ward where they regularly win unless it is a very good Conservative year .
I think at the moment many liberal conservatives in the shires are still with the Lib Dems and don't identify themselves with the Conservative party, perhaps because the local Conservative association is too right wing/traditionally conservative.
But of course all it takes is for more liberal-minded people to join the Conservative party and in time it will change.
They would have to find - as you suggest - a candidate for leadership that is both sensible (ie can win a general election) and would attract the votes of the increasingly left-wing party membership. Good luck with that.. lol
It is increasingly looking like a split will occur, though probably not formally until after the 2020 general election.
It would still be Burnham, Cooper, maybe Khan post-May. But , of the current crop, Tom Watson stands the best chance.
But Harriet would win any election hands down. Of course, her age comes into the question though she has not announced her retirement from 2020 yet.
As you rightly say, Labour probably won't lose 'hundreds' of seats because it's a relatively small cohort of councillors being elected this year. All the same, they will almost certainly lose seats on a net basis, with UKIP, Con and LD all likely to make gains. Whatever the reasons, that doesn't look good.
More money, true. A stronger, more successful, economy than Scotland.
More benefits, I'll take your word for it that Scotland treats the poor worse than England.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html
Trump leads by a very healthy margin, Rubio if anything slipping.
Only the Iowa Caucus can change things, and that's a straight Cruz/Trump race.
So I think 2.25 on Trump (PP/SkyBet) is clear value.
Cruz at 11 (PP - much shorter elsewhere) is a personal hedge, in case Trump implodes after losing Iowa (the poll Mike linked shows Cruz takes the lion's share). I don't really express a strong opinion on that, mind. (Combined = 1.87, greater than I think Trump should be ~1.72).
Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings of Plymouth University, reckon that once we smooth out these factors the figures from post-Corbyn contests portend a one point Conservative lead, of 32 per cent to 31 per cent, in May’s local elections. Labour will therefore be down seven or eight per cent on 2012, and might stand to lose around 200 council seats – good corroboration, if and when this happens, for our opinion poll findings.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/01/how-jeremy-corbyns-labour-faring-elections-so-far
With the greatest of respect, I'd trust Rallings and Thrasher's figures over anyone else's figures.
' I wasn't particularly enthusiastic, having wasted far too much of my time in New Hampshire on campaign events, going all the way back to the oxymoronic "Dole rallies" of 1996.
One couple were there because they were tootling along with a Trump sticker on the back of the car (something of a rare sight in Vermont) and at the stop sign an appreciative campaign staffer behind had leaped out and offered them VIP tickets. He was introduced on stage by Deb Billado, the Chittenden County chair for the Vermont Republican Party (Chittenden is the state's most populous county - and the most Ben & Jerrified), and prowling the aisles you could spot the occasional New Hampshire state rep. So if, as some of the dottier rumors suggest, the Republican establishment is planning to run third-party if Trump gets the nomination, it's not clear how much of the state apparatus they'll be taking with them. "If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be," declares Michael Gerson. The state legislators and volunteers present on Thursday would disagree.
Trump has no prompters. He walks out, pulls a couple of pieces of folded paper from his pocket, and then starts talking. I've seen no end of really mediocre shows at the Flynn in the last quarter-century, and I would have to account this the best night's entertainment I've had there with the exception of the great jazz singer Dianne Reeves a few years back. Had Mitt campaigned like this, he'd be president. But he had no ability to connect with voters. Nor does Jeb ("I've been endorsed by another 27 has-beens") Bush.
Halfway through, he detoured into an aside about how he was now having to go around in an armored car, and how many rounds it could take before the window disintegrated, and how the security guys shove you in and let the reinforced door slam you in the ass. And the thing's ugly as hell. "If I win," sighed Trump, "I'll never ride in a Rolls-Royce ever again." And all around me guys who drive Chevy Silverados and women who drive Honda Civics roared with laughter. Usually, a candidate claims, like Clinton, to feel our pain, but, just for a moment there, we felt Trump's.
f the national GOP is a vehicle for ensuring that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have a car and driver and a Gulf emir-sized retinue, then it's very effective. If it's a vehicle for advancing conservative principles, then it's a rusted-up lemon on cinder blocks. For many conservative voters, 2014 was the GOP's last chance, and they blew it. For those conservative voters whose priority is immigration, 2016 is America's last chance, and Trump's the only reason anyone's even talking about that.'
http://www.steynonline.com/7408/notes-on-a-phenomenon
The critical number is 117. The new party then becomes the "Official Opposition"
The whole scenario is unlikely, very unlikely. It also has to evoke a "liberal" tone [ Charlie Kennedy type ] to keep or even take the lost liberals.
If the number who splits is less than 50, then it will have the same effect as the SDP. Both parties will lose.
The Green vote will not come in the beginning. Also many Northern MPs may not come into the new party, thereby allowing UKIP about 20 seats. It also means Labour will regain very few Scottish seats in 2020.
@montie: After #Marrshow, @david_cameron offered to look after my postal vote in the #eureferendum. I thanked him but said no
Boris is a fairish bet to become the next leader of the Conservative party.
If that is becoming a relic, then I think there are many politicians around the world who would queue up to be relics.
Honestly I would like to see Labour m ake some gains, it would confuse so many people.
I still think there's room for someone to stand in London (English Democrats perhaps) with a policy of building the 3rd & 4th runways, and introducing driverless Tube trains.
But the point is that Corbynites will see a prime example of the electoral unattractiveness of their man.
That's the point I'm making.
He is brilliant, miss his regular Telegraph comments