Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
You can look this up for yourselves, but the Yanks are on record as saying (paraphrased) "The one thing we don't want is for Europe to set up a parallel C3i to NATO." GG EU.
It occurs to me that, once the UK leaves, the EU can drop English as a standard language.
Well, they might very well do so Anne. What would they replace it with? English is the global lingua franca. If that's not the very definition of irony, what is?
I doubt that very much - it's the second language in 23 out of 27 states afaiaa and of course the first language in 1 other.
I like that story about Tusk at the press conference after his appointment as EUCO president. He was asked if his English was good enough to do the job. He replied that his English was OK but he'd have to polish his Polish.
@MichaelLCrick: SNP Parliamentary leader Angus Robertson may claim at PMQs tmrw he should be deemed Leader of Opposition as has 56 MPs behind him; Corbyn 40
Brilliant stuff! I quite agree lol!
Bad to 'play' the speaker though. Mr Robertson Bshould hang his head, and then he should apologise.
Bercow, for all his faults, is I hope a resilient speaker.
I am convinced that if May gets on the ticket she will trounce Boris. I think t,the membership, though pleased to have voted out are now very scared about the economic consequnces and the recession etc.
Boris comes across as an unreliable chancer and a light weight. His comments to try and calm the markets the other day outside his house were a joke. He is totally incompetent.
May is reassuring, authoritative, reminiscent of Thatcher, a safe pair of hands in a crisis. rThe unifying figure the country needs.
For me, Boris's only chance is to keep her out of the final two and off the ballot to members. Otherwise, he is dead and buried.
-No-one has given me a job now I've graduated! -My skyscraper might not be built! -Someone I've talked to is worried! -Someone else I've talked to is thinking of moving to France! -No-one is certain whether they want to throw finance at my amazing newt-selling app start-up!
DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE BREXITERS? DO YOU??
*Rest of Britain gets on with life*
Sorry, I don't find others' economic misfortune particularly funny.
The humour lies in the fact that all these issues (aside from not being life and death) were entirely plentiful before. But we don't have uncertainty now, we have brexit uncertainty. We don't have racism, we have brexit racism. We don't have 'I didn't get the job', we have 'Brexit took my job'. It's becoming the new 'immigration' for the metros.
Well I guess if you are sort of person who theorises that Jo Cox's murder could have been a false flag event perpetrated by a remainer or the security services then you you have a pretty warped outlook on life.
You can look this up for yourselves, but the Yanks are on record as saying (paraphrased) "The one thing we don't want is for Europe to set up a parallel C3i to NATO." GG EU.
Good source says Andy Burnham about to quit Shadow Cabinet, and three people appointed to it yesterday
Yet more Blairites!
Do you think Angela Eagle would be more electorally successful than Corbyn?
A sack of shit would be more electorally successful than Corbyn. He will lose every Labour seat bar Islington and still not resign.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
She would not be my choice, but I think she would definitely be more effective than Corbyn. She can, for a start, hope to have the best Labour has on the front bench with her. That may not be a lot, but it is better than what Labour has now. Chuka, Cooper, Kendall, Jarvis, Leslie, Nandy and so on would bring a heft that clearly does not exist currently, and would be able to hold the Tories to account much more effectively.
Sorry, but there is an endless catalogue of car-crash interviews with the likes of Kendall, Umunna, Cooper and Leslie. Even leaving policies aside, none of them have shown they are any good at actual politics or connecting with the public.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Sorry missed. For the avoidance of doubt, Angela Eagle would be more electorally successful than Corbyn who is the by far the worst leader of the Labour I can remember and probably since it's foundation.
The evidence that Eagle will be more successful includes the fact that right now Corbyn intends to go into a general election with less than 20% of his MPs behind him. Can you imagine what a campaign would be like?
Good source says Andy Burnham about to quit Shadow Cabinet, and three people appointed to it yesterday
Yet more Blairites!
Do you think Angela Eagle would be more electorally successful than Corbyn?
A sack of shit would be more electorally successful than Corbyn. He will lose every Labour seat bar Islington and still not resign.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
She would not be my choice, but I think she would definitely be more effective than Corbyn. She can, for a start, hope to have the best Labour has on the front bench with her. That may not be a lot, but it is better than what Labour has now. Chuka, Cooper, Kendall, Jarvis, Leslie, Nandy and so on would bring a heft that clearly does not exist currently, and would be able to hold the Tories to account much more effectively.
I am holding my head in my hands at the thought of Eagle as leader.
The fact that Plato - who was laughing at Eagle during the referendum debate - is now talking her up tells you all you need to know.
Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
You can look this up for yourselves, but the Yanks are on record as saying (paraphrased) "The one thing we don't want is for Europe to set up a parallel C3i to NATO." GG EU.
Yes I know. It was during Lisbon we lost our veto on military integration. We don't have to be in it, but we can no longer stop others from doing it.
May - I don't believe the membership will care one jot she supported Remain. Her support was exactly the sort of sensible euroscepticism that the membership will now be flocking to. After all they are Conservatives. I thought this even before I saw the polling evidence. Now I have seen it, I am sure her lead over Boris will only grow if she can get down to the final two. Doubtless Boris will be trying desperately to get her excluded.
The evidence that Eagle will be successful includes the fact that right now Corbyn intends to go into a general election with less than 20% of his MPs behind him. Can you imagine what a campaign would be like?
Again, this is only evidence that Corbyn is not successful -- that is not the same thing as evidence that the alternative would be more successful. You're doing the equivalent of Labour's strategy in 2010-15, where they spent all their time talking about how bad and incompetent the Tories were without giving a rationale for why they would do a better job.
Where is the evidence that Angela Eagle would be popular with the public, would be seen as a potential PM, can read the public mood and has the policies that appeal to the public?
Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
How does it undermine Nato? NATO is basically the US, the UK,the French and whatever ragtag medical corp is put together by the rest of the continent. A euro army will just make Nato easier to manage.
And I have said on here before, remember that Mr Corbyn has been informed and knows all about the activity on 'that road' that would damn many of his enemies in the PLP right now. Now that would be the ultimate nuclear option!
It would damn many of his enemies but would probably also damn himself. His former constituency agent was Derek Sawyer.
It almost beggars belief that Margaret Hodge is still around, exerting high-level political influence.
I'm an open minded voter and drift around the Tory/Lib Dem axis, I voted in Anna Soubry last year as the Labour candidate was an arse. I would not vote for Johnson's Tories unless he came up with some stunning policies, and he won't.
New to PB.com and its posters are we Harold?
PB.com no, but the posters yes. I used to lurk a good few years ago but aside from SeanT and ex-MP nick I remember few of the names.
As I saod last thread. Theresa becomes leader advocates and agrees EEA membership with the EU, calls a snap election vs Corbyn who just about holds on, watches Labour get destroyed in the north by UKIP. After winning she makes Boris chancellor to deliver the Leave prospectus and the millions per week to the NHS. In one stroke she has defeated her rival and decapitated Labour while delivering an economic settlement that will placate most Tory voters who plumped for Leave as we will be out of the EU and have control over our laws and non-EU trade.
Theresa May could be a modern day Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather.
The evidence that Eagle will be successful includes the fact that right now Corbyn intends to go into a general election with less than 20% of his MPs behind him. Can you imagine what a campaign would be like?
Again, this is only evidence that Corbyn is not successful -- that is not evidence that the alternative would be more successful. This is equivalent to Labour's strategy in 2010-15, where they spent all their time talking about how bad and incompetent the Tories were without giving a rationale for why they would be better.
Where is the evidence that Angela Eagle would be popular with the public, would be seen as a potential PM, can read the public mood and has the policies that appeal to the public?
Indeed..... It would be brilliant for Labour to elect a female leader but there are much better options than the Eagles.
I'm an open minded voter and drift around the Tory/Lib Dem axis, I voted in Anna Soubry last year as the Labour candidate was an arse. I would not vote for Johnson's Tories unless he came up with some stunning policies, and he won't.
You can look this up for yourselves, but the Yanks are on record as saying (paraphrased) "The one thing we don't want is for Europe to set up a parallel C3i to NATO." GG EU.
It would be deeply effing stupid.
Does an EU army make sense if four member states are non-aligned and neutral, with no interest in getting involved in others' armed conflicts?
I'm an open minded voter and drift around the Tory/Lib Dem axis, I voted in Anna Soubry last year as the Labour candidate was an arse. I would not vote for Johnson's Tories unless he came up with some stunning policies, and he won't.
New to PB.com and its posters are we Harold?
PB.com no, but the posters yes. I used to lurk a good few years ago but aside from SeanT and ex-MP nick I remember few of the names.
You don’t connect ex-MP Nick with a constituency then?
Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
How does it undermine Nato? NATO is basically the US, the UK,the French and whatever ragtag medical corp is put together by the rest of the continent. A euro army will just make Nato easier to manage.
An EU army is a foreign policy tool of the EU. As it stands now, the US exerts a powerful practical control over military action in Europe and its environs. An EU army is outwith that control. That's not difficult to grasp is it?
Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
How does it undermine Nato? NATO is basically the US, the UK,the French and whatever ragtag medical corp is put together by the rest of the continent. A euro army will just make Nato easier to manage.
Because NATO may have different objectives to the EU. Look at how the UK had to drag the EU into sanctions on Russia, it was NATO pressure which kept the Russians locked up in Crimea. If we had the EU army contradicting that because we aren't in it, then they would be undermining NATO.
It's not just me who thinks this though, the US do, the MoD do and so do a few of the Eastern European nations who see the US and UK as a more reliable ally against Russian aggression than Germany and France.
Curious. We could soon have the situation where both candidates for British PM are female, and would anyone think anything of it? (When Mrs T took over the Tories, my grandmother, a staunch Labour supporter, said it was a ridiculous appointment and no job for a woman.)
Dont fall into Browns investment trap. The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals.
You are right about Euston. Concentrating all fast intercity services to the north on one line and terminus is crazy - another reason to cancel the eastern leg and spend the money adding capacity and speed upgrades to ECML and MML instead.
"The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals."
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect (*). From memory the budget is split into three: maintenance, renewals, and improvements (under different names). I *think* income to NR from the TOCs is enough pay for the first two for the last couple of years; it's improvements to the networks that are taking the majority of the budget. But I don't have the figures to hand. Perhaps in the Hendy Report?
AIUI the capacity constraints are mianly on the WCML, not the ECML and MML.
(*) But you know your sausages on this, so feel free to correct me.
£12.9bn for enhancements. Of course, the assumptions about GWEP proved to be way out and the upshot is that schemes planned for CP5 have now been shoved into CP6.
Boris probably wanted a few years in the cabinet and then to inherit in 2019, instead he now has to actually lead in a crisis and has shit the bed quite spectacularly....and it's been less than five days. He has bound himself to whatever happens next and has to be involved, if he is anything less than 100% authoritative and in control people will ask questions about his ability to see through his own project....and let's be honest even at his best he is neither of those things. The protective wing of Cameron has gone and Boris is now on his own with a backroom boy who is less popular than sinusitis in Gove as his closest ally. He has to make a pitch to win, and so far that pitch is "ummm, arr, well , you know, ahem, yes".
May is dull, but people want dull right now....I mean not Hammond dull. I swear to god he doesn't open his eyes when he speaks sometimes, like his eyes dont want to see the dullness coming out of his mouth.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Curious. We could soon have the situation where both candidates for British PM are female, and would anyone think anything of it? (When Mrs T took over the Tories, my grandmother, a staunch Labour supporter, said it was a ridiculous appointment and no job for a woman.)
I think even the dunderheads have grasped the idea that women are equal to men.
I might still have the edge at heaving sacks of potatoes around, but I'd imagine there's not much call for that in Whitehall.
I find it astonishing that people actually think "where is the evidence that X might do any better than Corbyn" is a serious argument. In Corbyn we are not talking about somebody who might go down to a modest defeat, indicating a potential significant downside to replacing him with somebody who might do worse. For effing sake he can't even find enough MPs to back him in a vote of confidence sufficient to fill a front bench! He can barely fill a Shadow Cabinet. I know sometime in politics the 'conventional wisdom' can be wrong, but there isn't even an unconventional wisdom that comes up with an argument in his favour right now. He is basically hanging on via a technicality of how the Labour Leadership rules are framed.
I'm an open minded voter and drift around the Tory/Lib Dem axis, I voted in Anna Soubry last year as the Labour candidate was an arse. I would not vote for Johnson's Tories unless he came up with some stunning policies, and he won't.
New to PB.com and its posters are we Harold?
PB.com no, but the posters yes. I used to lurk a good few years ago but aside from SeanT and ex-MP nick I remember few of the names.
You don’t connect ex-MP Nick with a constituency then?
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
Curious. We could soon have the situation where both candidates for British PM are female, and would anyone think anything of it? (When Mrs T took over the Tories, my grandmother, a staunch Labour supporter, said it was a ridiculous appointment and no job for a woman.)
Furthermore, Thankfully virtually nobody blinks an eye from an mp "comes out" these days.
Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
How does it undermine Nato? NATO is basically the US, the UK,the French and whatever ragtag medical corp is put together by the rest of the continent. A euro army will just make Nato easier to manage.
Because NATO may have different objectives to the EU. Look at how the UK had to drag the EU into sanctions on Russia, it was NATO pressure which kept the Russians locked up in Crimea. If we had the EU army contradicting that because we aren't in it, then they would be undermining NATO.
It's not just me who thinks this though, the US do, the MoD do and so do a few of the Eastern European nations who see the US and UK as a more reliable ally against Russian aggression than Germany and France.
The East Europeans especially agree with the US and UK. I think talk of a Euro army without the UK is hilarious, the French are the closes to having any real power and they are borderline. The Germans wouldn't take any punitive action against anyone unless it was on their own border, and then they would hand wring until the last moment. The rest aren't worth talking about I'm afraid, which I really hate to say as it leaves a hollowed out shell of a country like Russia as a real threat.
The question is...ISIS? or the Kurds? etc etc etc?
It could be anyone. There're left-wing terrorists groups bombing as well, such as TIKKO.
Turkey's really frightened; it's facing some fairly existential threats, and IMO the current leadership isn't helping.
Look at our reaction to the various IRA atrocities, and then remember they were 'minor' compared to what's happening in the east of Turkey, by both sides. Add in the fact that there's a very hot war going on along its southern border, and it's trying to care for millions of refugees from that war.
Something has to give, and it won't be pretty.
It's a real shame that the Solution Process (*) wrt the Kurds failed. It so nearly worked.
(*) That seems a really inapt name to me, given that it reminds me of the 'Final Solution'.
In Corbyn we are not talking about somebody who might go down to a modest defeat, indicating a potential significant downside to replacing him with somebody who might do worse.
Actually we're talking about someone who in May, while not doing particularly well in the local elections, did better than the "Remain" campaign did.
So yes, I do think there's a huge significiant downside to replacing him, since the alternative would be taking notes from the playbook of a campaign that failed just one week ago.
The EU is such a threat to NATO I think we should frame our NATO ally Turkey as a satanic Xenos to persuade the British people to leave the EU.
The same Turkey who threatened NATOs defence posture vs Russia by shooting down a plane for a 10 second air space encroachment. Not a terribly reliable ally.
I'm an open minded voter and drift around the Tory/Lib Dem axis, I voted in Anna Soubry last year as the Labour candidate was an arse. I would not vote for Johnson's Tories unless he came up with some stunning policies, and he won't.
New to PB.com and its posters are we Harold?
PB.com no, but the posters yes. I used to lurk a good few years ago but aside from SeanT and ex-MP nick I remember few of the names.
You don’t connect ex-MP Nick with a constituency then?
And I have said on here before, remember that Mr Corbyn has been informed and knows all about the activity on 'that road' that would damn many of his enemies in the PLP right now. Now that would be the ultimate nuclear option!
It would damn many of his enemies but would probably also damn himself. His former constituency agent was Derek Sawyer.
It almost beggars belief that Margaret Hodge is still around, exerting high-level political influence.
Yes the same Derek Sawyer that got on oh so well with Andrea Davison. And I agree with you about the Oppenheimer lady, she should have been out on her ar*e years ago if we had a healthy functioning democracy.
I find it astonishing that people actually think "where is the evidence that X might do any better than Corbyn" is a serious argument. In Corbyn we are not talking about somebody who might go down to a modest defeat, indicating a potential significant downside to replacing him with somebody who might do worse. For effing sake he can't even find enough MPs to back him in a vote of confidence sufficient to fill a front bench! He can barely fill a Shadow Cabinet. I know sometime in politics the 'conventional wisdom' can be wrong, but there isn't even an unconventional wisdom that comes up with an argument in his favour right now. He is basically hanging on via a technicality of how the Labour Leadership rules are framed.
And yet the performances at the ballot box during his tenure have not been completely disastrous. And all evidence suggests he is closer to many of his voters - indeed the ones that Labour are haemorrhaging - on BREXIT than much of the PLP.
I do agree - he really has to go - but I think his treatment at the hands of the PLP has been absolutely abominable - and one or two of the people who have undermined every moment of his leadership deserve nothing but opprobrium for the way they have treated him.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Amen to this. He is a deluded old Trot who is outperformed every single week at PMQs by Angus Robertson. He never grasps the core topical issues e.g. doctors' strike, or fails to respond/lead when a crisis topic emerges e.g. Dubs amendment.
He would rather split the Labour party to retain leadership, than see them succeed and defeat the Tories. He is kicking towards an open goal, with the Tories in utter meltdown. A competent, articulate leader would be polling 40% in the polls. At this rate, we'll end up with SDP2.0
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
Eagle ticks a lot of boxes-she speaks well in the Commons, she comes across normal by politician standards, she is experienced, she has working class roots and most importantly, she is liked amongst MPs so could unite the party. Being able to promote the Labour MPs who refused to serve Corbyn would lead to a much stronger Shadow Cabinet to put to the public in an election.
Should Boris and Angela Eagle finish up facing each other across the Despatch Box, it will be interesting to compare and contrast their respective hair colours and styles (using the latter term loosely of course).
I find it astonishing that people actually think "where is the evidence that X might do any better than Corbyn" is a serious argument. In Corbyn we are not talking about somebody who might go down to a modest defeat, indicating a potential significant downside to replacing him with somebody who might do worse. For effing sake he can't even find enough MPs to back him in a vote of confidence sufficient to fill a front bench! He can barely fill a Shadow Cabinet. I know sometime in politics the 'conventional wisdom' can be wrong, but there isn't even an unconventional wisdom that comes up with an argument in his favour right now. He is basically hanging on via a technicality of how the Labour Leadership rules are framed.
But you've got to understand the far-Left mindset. To Corbyn and his kind the Labour Party is nothing more than a rostrum - a useful thing from which to disseminate propaganda and agitate. For him the real change will come from the street, in the form of uprisings and the revolting masses.
Good source says Andy Burnham about to quit Shadow Cabinet, and three people appointed to it yesterday
Yet more Blairites!
Do you think Angela Eagle would be more electorally successful than Corbyn?
A sack of shit would be more electorally successful than Corbyn. He will lose every Labour seat bar Islington and still not resign.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
She would not be my choice, but I think she would definitely be more effective than Corbyn. She can, for a start, hope to have the best Labour has on the front bench with her. That may not be a lot, but it is better than what Labour has now. Chuka, Cooper, Kendall, Jarvis, Leslie, Nandy and so on would bring a heft that clearly does not exist currently, and would be able to hold the Tories to account much more effectively.
Sorry, but there is an endless catalogue of car-crash interviews with the likes of Kendall, Umunna, Cooper and Leslie. Even leaving policies aside, none of them have shown they are any good at actual politics or connecting with the public.
This is as opposed to the endless series of amazing interviews given by the handful of people who have agreed to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and who will be holding the government to account until the next general election. Not to mention the stellar performances we have seen from Corbyn himself on TV. Ha, ha.
Come off it Danny, you are going to have to do a lot better than that to justify your support for a man who is going to lead Labour to electoral catastrophe.
In fact Turkey more or less sums up right wing British euroscepticism. Happy for the UK to commit to use nuclear weapons against Russia to defend Turkey. Unhappy for the UK to encourage and facilitate Turkey to adopt the Acquis and become a prosperous liberal democracy.
I find it astonishing that people actually think "where is the evidence that X might do any better than Corbyn" is a serious argument. In Corbyn we are not talking about somebody who might go down to a modest defeat, indicating a potential significant downside to replacing him with somebody who might do worse. For effing sake he can't even find enough MPs to back him in a vote of confidence sufficient to fill a front bench! He can barely fill a Shadow Cabinet. I know sometime in politics the 'conventional wisdom' can be wrong, but there isn't even an unconventional wisdom that comes up with an argument in his favour right now. He is basically hanging on via a technicality of how the Labour Leadership rules are framed.
And yet the performances at the ballot box during his tenure have not been completely disastrous. And all evidence suggests he is closer to many of his voters - indeed the ones that Labour are haemorrhaging - on BREXIT than much of the PLP.
I do agree - he really has to go - but I think his treatment at the hands of the PLP has been absolutely abominable - and one or two of the people who have undermined every moment of his leadership deserve nothing but opprobrium for the way they have treated him.
Labour have a responsibility to the country to get their collective arses in gear. With the single exception of 1997 (and even then, I can't recall if I did the deed), I have had no choice but to vote Tory because Labour + Economy = DoublePlusUngood.
Labour are condemning us to live in a one party state. No, I'm sorry Lib Dems and UKIP don't count, be quiet in the back.
Dont fall into Browns investment trap. The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals.
You are right about Euston. Concentrating all fast intercity services to the north on one line and terminus is crazy - another reason to cancel the eastern leg and spend the money adding capacity and speed upgrades to ECML and MML instead.
"The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals."
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect (*). From memory the budget is split into three: maintenance, renewals, and improvements (under different names). I *think* income to NR from the TOCs is enough pay for the first two for the last couple of years; it's improvements to the networks that are taking the majority of the budget. But I don't have the figures to hand. Perhaps in the Hendy Report?
AIUI the capacity constraints are mianly on the WCML, not the ECML and MML.
(*) But you know your sausages on this, so feel free to correct me.
£12.9bn for enhancements. Of course, the assumptions about GWEP proved to be way out and the upshot is that schemes planned for CP5 have now been shoved into CP6.
Ah, thanks. )
The Great Western electrification is showing - again - how hard and costly it is to do major upgrades to working rail routes.
The evidence that Eagle will be successful includes the fact that right now Corbyn intends to go into a general election with less than 20% of his MPs behind him. Can you imagine what a campaign would be like?
Again, this is only evidence that Corbyn is not successful -- that is not the same thing as evidence that the alternative would be more successful. You're doing the equivalent of Labour's strategy in 2010-15, where they spent all their time talking about how bad and incompetent the Tories were without giving a rationale for why they would do a better job.
Where is the evidence that Angela Eagle would be popular with the public, would be seen as a potential PM, can read the public mood and has the policies that appeal to the public?
Out of interest, how do you think Corbyn's views on Trident, immigration, the monarchy, shoot to kill and foreign policy sit with the public?
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
All of that is irrelevant if they can't actually get Corbyn out. He still hasn't resigned.
I find it astonishing that people actually think "where is the evidence that X might do any better than Corbyn" is a serious argument. In Corbyn we are not talking about somebody who might go down to a modest defeat, indicating a potential significant downside to replacing him with somebody who might do worse. For effing sake he can't even find enough MPs to back him in a vote of confidence sufficient to fill a front bench! He can barely fill a Shadow Cabinet. I know sometime in politics the 'conventional wisdom' can be wrong, but there isn't even an unconventional wisdom that comes up with an argument in his favour right now. He is basically hanging on via a technicality of how the Labour Leadership rules are framed.
And yet the performances at the ballot box during his tenure have not been completely disastrous. And all evidence suggests he is closer to many of his voters - indeed the ones that Labour are haemorrhaging - on BREXIT than much of the PLP.
I do agree - he really has to go - but I think his treatment at the hands of the PLP has been absolutely abominable - and one or two of the people who have undermined every moment of his leadership deserve nothing but opprobrium for the way they have treated him.
He was against the EU for all the wrong reasons as far as the Labour core vote is concerned. To say that he has a closer position on Brexit when he favours no immigration controls whatsoever just makes any commonalities a coincidence.
As I saod last thread. Theresa becomes leader advocates and agrees EEA membership with the EU, calls a snap election vs Corbyn who just about holds on, watches Labour get destroyed in the north by UKIP. After winning she makes Boris chancellor to deliver the Leave prospectus and the millions per week to the NHS. In one stroke she has defeated her rival and decapitated Labour while delivering an economic settlement that will placate most Tory voters who plumped for Leave as we will be out of the EU and have control over our laws and non-EU trade.
Theresa May could be a modern day Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather.
Eagle ticks a lot of boxes-she speaks well in the Commons, she comes across normal by politician standards, she is experienced, she has working class roots and most importantly, she is liked amongst MPs so could unite the party. Being able to promote the Labour MPs who refused to serve Corbyn would lead to a much stronger Shadow Cabinet to put to the public in an election.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
Jonathan - she was godawful in that ITV referendum debate. Godawful. And her voice is not a leader's voice. Please no.
Has Lord Falconer emerged from Finchley Road yet ?
Jezza has been told by Malcolm from Ayrshire that Charlie Falconer is presently seeking the advice of a noted turnip sear before making a decision.
You’re getting better then Jack? Being allowed to do your own posts now?
Mainly so. I've invested in a small ASUS Chromebook flip that is excellent in my present situation. Mrs JackW is a fan and it's an excellent product, well built and tremendous value at about £220 .. the computer that is, not Mrs JackW !
Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
*PEDANT ALERT The Yanks haven't used Polaris for ages. They moved to Poseidon and then Trident (which is what we use also, of course).
(Apologies - I couldn't help myself. No offence meant.)
Curious. We could soon have the situation where both candidates for British PM are female, and would anyone think anything of it? (When Mrs T took over the Tories, my grandmother, a staunch Labour supporter, said it was a ridiculous appointment and no job for a woman.)
Plus Sturgeon, Wood, Dugdale, Davidson and probably Lucas.
What would the odds have been on that, a few years ago?
As I saod last thread. Theresa becomes leader advocates and agrees EEA membership with the EU, calls a snap election vs Corbyn who just about holds on, watches Labour get destroyed in the north by UKIP. After winning she makes Boris chancellor to deliver the Leave prospectus and the millions per week to the NHS. In one stroke she has defeated her rival and decapitated Labour while delivering an economic settlement that will placate most Tory voters who plumped for Leave as we will be out of the EU and have control over our laws and non-EU trade.
Theresa May could be a modern day Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather.
Or a modern day Cersei.
Hmm, of Theresa does to London what Cersei does to King's Landing then I might have to vote for Boris.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
All of that is irrelevant if they can't actually get Corbyn out. He still hasn't resigned.
Labour members will ensure that Corbyn leads the party into the next election. Indeed, they may well vote for him to continue afterwards. The comfort blanket is deep and alluring, the business of changing lives through politics so dirty and full of compromise. Far better to have Corbyn lead Labour to utter irrelevance than to have someone else in charge who may not deliver everything that you want - and sod the people that Labour is supposed to represent.
As I saod last thread. Theresa becomes leader advocates and agrees EEA membership with the EU, calls a snap election vs Corbyn who just about holds on, watches Labour get destroyed in the north by UKIP. After winning she makes Boris chancellor to deliver the Leave prospectus and the millions per week to the NHS. In one stroke she has defeated her rival and decapitated Labour while delivering an economic settlement that will placate most Tory voters who plumped for Leave as we will be out of the EU and have control over our laws and non-EU trade.
Theresa May could be a modern day Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather.
Or a modern day Cersei.
Yes please, with a walk of shame from St Pauls to the Tower.... LOL
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
All of that is irrelevant if they can't actually get Corbyn out. He still hasn't resigned.
They can force a vote to the members.
What does the PLP do if Corbyn actually wins though ?
As I saod last thread. Theresa becomes leader advocates and agrees EEA membership with the EU, calls a snap election vs Corbyn who just about holds on, watches Labour get destroyed in the north by UKIP. After winning she makes Boris chancellor to deliver the Leave prospectus and the millions per week to the NHS. In one stroke she has defeated her rival and decapitated Labour while delivering an economic settlement that will placate most Tory voters who plumped for Leave as we will be out of the EU and have control over our laws and non-EU trade.
Theresa May could be a modern day Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather.
Or a modern day Cersei.
Hmm, of Theresa does to London what Cersei does to King's Landing then I might have to vote for Boris.
If May becomes leader she is surely going to be a very similar leader to Cameron - but just without quite as much polish.
Rather begs the question as to whether it would simply have been easier for Cameron to carry on.
After the shock of losing the referendum has passed I'm sure Cameron would beat both Boris and May in any vote by miles.
As an aside, I thought Osborne explaining why he wasn't standing showed him in a very good and very human light. Chapeau M. Osborne. I have removed one needle from the voodoo doll I created after Punishment Budget. Keep it up.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
Jonathan - she was godawful in that ITV referendum debate. Godawful. And her voice is not a leader's voice. Please no.
Dont fall into Browns investment trap. The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals.
You are right about Euston. Concentrating all fast intercity services to the north on one line and terminus is crazy - another reason to cancel the eastern leg and spend the money adding capacity and speed upgrades to ECML and MML instead.
"The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals."
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect (*). From memory the budget is split into three: maintenance, renewals, and improvements (under different names). I *think* income to NR from the TOCs is enough pay for the first two for the last couple of years; it's improvements to the networks that are taking the majority of the budget. But I don't have the figures to hand. Perhaps in the Hendy Report?
AIUI the capacity constraints are mianly on the WCML, not the ECML and MML.
(*) But you know your sausages on this, so feel free to correct me.
£12.9bn for enhancements. Of course, the assumptions about GWEP proved to be way out and the upshot is that schemes planned for CP5 have now been shoved into CP6.
Ah, thanks. )
The Great Western electrification is showing - again - how hard and costly it is to do major upgrades to working rail routes.
I used to hang around on a rail nerds forum (don't judge me) and that was the main bone on contention, HS2 is very expensive but the cost in disrupting the current system is massive and long lived and will have huge consequences for other parts of the network as the upgrades occur most of which cannot be planned for. HS2 eliminates the affect on the current system, but causes other problems in of itself.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
Is she better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking? Call me "obtuse" all you want, but you're genuinely going to have to spell out to me the ways in which she's better than Corbyn presentationally. As far as I see it, she is really terrible at handling awkward questions in interviews, doesn't have much obvious "charm" that comes through on telly, lapses into impenetrable politics-speak much more than Corbyn, and doesn't have any more kind of natural "gravitas" than Corbyn does.
She has a proven track record on policy? What's she done? What does she stand for?
By all accounts she's a good MP, but there's no evidence - and in my view not even any halfway-convincing arguments - that she would have a better chance of winning a General Election than Corbyn.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
All of that is irrelevant if they can't actually get Corbyn out. He still hasn't resigned.
They can force a vote to the members.
What does the PLP do if Corbyn actually wins though ?
Why do people think May is a good leader? For keeping her head down in the Referendum - is that it?
If Boris disappears for 5 minutes, there's cries of "where's Boris". But when May avoids taking a stand at all on the most important issue facing Britain in a generation, that somehow makes her good leader material?
If May becomes leader she is surely going to be a very similar leader to Cameron - but just without quite as much polish.
Rather begs the question as to whether it would simply have been easier for Cameron to carry on.
After the shock of losing the referendum has passed I'm sure Cameron would beat both Boris and May in any vote by miles.
In many ways May taking a back seat is almost a backstopping position for Cameron....I wonder if the two spoke about it before the campaign began. Hmmm.
The evidence that Eagle will be successful includes the fact that right now Corbyn intends to go into a general election with less than 20% of his MPs behind him. Can you imagine what a campaign would be like?
Again, this is only evidence that Corbyn is not successful -- that is not the same thing as evidence that the alternative would be more successful. You're doing the equivalent of Labour's strategy in 2010-15, where they spent all their time talking about how bad and incompetent the Tories were without giving a rationale for why they would do a better job.
Where is the evidence that Angela Eagle would be popular with the public, would be seen as a potential PM, can read the public mood and has the policies that appeal to the public?
Out of interest, how do you think Corbyn's views on Trident, immigration, the monarchy, shoot to kill and foreign policy sit with the public?
The workers are clamouring for all of it, if only the workers understood.
If May becomes leader she is surely going to be a very similar leader to Cameron - but just without quite as much polish.
Rather begs the question as to whether it would simply have been easier for Cameron to carry on.
After the shock of losing the referendum has passed I'm sure Cameron would beat both Boris and May in any vote by miles.
I'm sure that's true, but then he was planning on going anyway over the next circa 2 years.
It will be interesting to see whether he continues as an MP, perhaps doing a Gordon, being barely ever seen, but picking up his salary and other perks. Somehow I doubt that's his style.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
Jonathan - she was godawful in that ITV referendum debate. Godawful. And her voice is not a leader's voice. Please no.
If you don't like Eagle you should be calling for Corbyn to resign so that Labour can have a proper contest. Even if Eagle is not great, it doesn't say much for Labour's future prospects if they can't find a better leader anywhere. And people get far too hung up on policies. With the right leader, who is prepared to show some flexibility on policy as appropriate, it shouldn't matter what their underlying political philosophy is. People will follow good leaders.
As I saod last thread. Theresa becomes leader advocates and agrees EEA membership with the EU, calls a snap election vs Corbyn who just about holds on, watches Labour get destroyed in the north by UKIP. After winning she makes Boris chancellor to deliver the Leave prospectus and the millions per week to the NHS. In one stroke she has defeated her rival and decapitated Labour while delivering an economic settlement that will placate most Tory voters who plumped for Leave as we will be out of the EU and have control over our laws and non-EU trade.
Theresa May could be a modern day Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather.
Or a modern day Cersei.
Hmm, of Theresa does to London what Cersei does to King's Landing then I might have to vote for Boris.
The evidence that Eagle will be successful includes the fact that right now Corbyn intends to go into a general election with less than 20% of his MPs behind him. Can you imagine what a campaign would be like?
Again, this is only evidence that Corbyn is not successful -- that is not the same thing as evidence that the alternative would be more successful. You're doing the equivalent of Labour's strategy in 2010-15, where they spent all their time talking about how bad and incompetent the Tories were without giving a rationale for why they would do a better job.
Where is the evidence that Angela Eagle would be popular with the public, would be seen as a potential PM, can read the public mood and has the policies that appeal to the public?
Out of interest, how do you think Corbyn's views on Trident, immigration, the monarchy, shoot to kill and foreign policy sit with the public?
The workers are clamouring for all of it, if only the workers understood.
Quite. Have you all forgotten the very concept of false consciousness? We'll have to fire up the pb re-education camps forthwith.
Dont fall into Browns investment trap. The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals.
You are right about Euston. Concentrating all fast intercity services to the north on one line and terminus is crazy - another reason to cancel the eastern leg and spend the money adding capacity and speed upgrades to ECML and MML instead.
"The vast majority of that £30 billion so called investment is maintenance and renewals."
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect (*). From memory the budget is split into three: maintenance, renewals, and improvements (under different names). I *think* income to NR from the TOCs is enough pay for the first two for the last couple of years; it's improvements to the networks that are taking the majority of the budget. But I don't have the figures to hand. Perhaps in the Hendy Report?
AIUI the capacity constraints are mianly on the WCML, not the ECML and MML.
(*) But you know your sausages on this, so feel free to correct me.
£12.9bn for enhancements. Of course, the assumptions about GWEP proved to be way out and the upshot is that schemes planned for CP5 have now been shoved into CP6.
Ah, thanks. )
The Great Western electrification is showing - again - how hard and costly it is to do major upgrades to working rail routes.
And also, we haven't been electrifying railways for years so we lack the technical experience. What you want is to get the experience and keep going bit by bit over a number of decades.
The EU is such a threat to NATO I think we should frame our NATO ally Turkey as a satanic Xenos to persuade the British people to leave the EU.
The same Turkey who threatened NATOs defence posture vs Russia by shooting down a plane for a 10 second air space encroachment. Not a terribly reliable ally.
Which happened after several other incursions, which Russia had apologised for and said would not happen again.
It was a foreign warplane, coming out of an active warzone, of a type used by a belligerent (Syria), from an airbase adjacent to a Syrian one.
What do you think the British government would do in such circumstances? The press have conniptions about unarmed Russian Bears overflying the North Sea ...
"The EU referendum created a huge divide in Birmingham – with more than three quarters voting to Remain in some wards and the same ratio voting Leave in others. The Brexit battle in the city was the most fierce in the UK, with 50.4 per cent of more than 450,000 voters wanting to Leave. New data reveals how the votes differed wildly in different parts of the city. In all, 22 of Birmingham’s 40 wards voted to Leave, and 18 wanted to remain."
That's not an answer to my question. Do you think Eagle would be more electorally successful? What evidence is there of it?
Furthermore, Corbyn has not a single idea or policy that he could not have had in the 1980s. This means that in 30+ years he has learnt the sum total of nothing. As such I question his intellect for the job.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
Nope, because these are all still only arguments why Corbyn is bad. They are not arguments why Eagle (or anyone else) is better, that she would be more capable of working with people who don't agree with him, that she is more articulate and can speak without resorting to generalisations, etcetc.
You are being deliberately obtuse. To spell it out on these counts.
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
Is she better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking? Call me "obtuse" all you want, but you're genuinely going to have to spell out to me the ways in which she's better than Corbyn presentationally. As far as I see it, she is really terrible at handling awkward questions in interviews, doesn't have much obvious "charm" that comes through on telly, lapses into impenetrable politics-speak much more than Corbyn, and doesn't have any more kind of natural "gravitas" than Corbyn does.
She has a proven track record on policy? What's she done? What does she stand for?
By all accounts she's a good MP, but there's no evidence - and in my view not even any halfway-convincing arguments - that she would have a better chance of winning a General Election than Corbyn.
She is intelligent enough to know that if you lack the support of 80% of your Parliamentary colleagues you are not in a tenable position. Corbyn does not even have that level of insight.
Do we care about an EU army? even if we we're still in we wouldn't have to join and it wouldn't affect us.
Yes because it undermines NATO. Whatever you say or think about the US, we need them and their Polaris missiles. We should not be part of a union which seeks to undermine our defence posture and most reliable military partner of recent times.
*PEDANT ALERT The Yanks haven't used Polaris for ages. They moved to Poseidon and then Trident (which is what we use also, of course).
(Apologies - I couldn't help myself. No offence meant.)
Good correction. Point of order or whatever.
PB almost needs its own Mr Bercow.
(I know he's made the odd bad call, but he's really rather good I find)
Comments
'I am afraid Mr Corbyn is seen as the House of Commons equivalent of Boaty McBoatface by the general public '.
Ba-zinga.
Bercow, for all his faults, is I hope a resilient speaker.
Boris comes across as an unreliable chancer and a light weight. His comments to try and calm the markets the other day outside his house were a joke. He is totally incompetent.
May is reassuring, authoritative, reminiscent of Thatcher, a safe pair of hands in a crisis. rThe unifying figure the country needs.
For me, Boris's only chance is to keep her out of the final two and off the ballot to members. Otherwise, he is dead and buried.
The evidence that Eagle will be more successful includes the fact that right now Corbyn intends to go into a general election with less than 20% of his MPs behind him. Can you imagine what a campaign would be like?
The fact that Plato - who was laughing at Eagle during the referendum debate - is now talking her up tells you all you need to know.
NURSE! Please make it stop.
Where is the evidence that Angela Eagle would be popular with the public, would be seen as a potential PM, can read the public mood and has the policies that appeal to the public?
It almost beggars belief that Margaret Hodge is still around, exerting high-level political influence.
It's not just me who thinks this though, the US do, the MoD do and so do a few of the Eastern European nations who see the US and UK as a more reliable ally against Russian aggression than Germany and France.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3664181/JK-Rowling-joins-Labour-MPs-slam-Jeremy-Corbyn-backing-rally-attended-hard-left-activists-wearing-eradicate-right-wing-Blairite-vermin-T-shirts-days-Jo-Cox-killing.html
http://tinyurl.com/ja7j4l3
£12.9bn for enhancements. Of course, the assumptions about GWEP proved to be way out and the upshot is that schemes planned for CP5 have now been shoved into CP6.
The protective wing of Cameron has gone and Boris is now on his own with a backroom boy who is less popular than sinusitis in Gove as his closest ally. He has to make a pitch to win, and so far that pitch is "ummm, arr, well , you know, ahem, yes".
May is dull, but people want dull right now....I mean not Hammond dull. I swear to god he doesn't open his eyes when he speaks sometimes, like his eyes dont want to see the dullness coming out of his mouth.
Go on. tell us.
He cannot work with people who do not agree with him. There is no evidence that Corbyn could form an election winning coalition. He can barely agree with people who have voted Labour all their lives. Never has Labour been more divided.
He is inarticulate, he can barely express his own ideas without resorting to trite generalisations. He speaks like he is permanently in a political meeting.
His ego is galactic. He has encourages a personality cult around his leadership that goes against everything Labour stands for. A cult that now risks the destruction of the party he leads.
Is that getting clearer?
I might still have the edge at heaving sacks of potatoes around, but I'd imagine there's not much call for that in Whitehall.
The rest aren't worth talking about I'm afraid, which I really hate to say as it leaves a hollowed out shell of a country like Russia as a real threat.
Turkey's really frightened; it's facing some fairly existential threats, and IMO the current leadership isn't helping.
Look at our reaction to the various IRA atrocities, and then remember they were 'minor' compared to what's happening in the east of Turkey, by both sides. Add in the fact that there's a very hot war going on along its southern border, and it's trying to care for millions of refugees from that war.
Something has to give, and it won't be pretty.
It's a real shame that the Solution Process (*) wrt the Kurds failed. It so nearly worked.
(*) That seems a really inapt name to me, given that it reminds me of the 'Final Solution'.
So yes, I do think there's a huge significiant downside to replacing him, since the alternative would be taking notes from the playbook of a campaign that failed just one week ago.
Your last post was one I could agree with.
I do agree - he really has to go - but I think his treatment at the hands of the PLP has been absolutely abominable - and one or two of the people who have undermined every moment of his leadership deserve nothing but opprobrium for the way they have treated him.
He would rather split the Labour party to retain leadership, than see them succeed and defeat the Tories. He is kicking towards an open goal, with the Tories in utter meltdown. A competent, articulate leader would be polling 40% in the polls. At this rate, we'll end up with SDP2.0
She is not great, but is better than Corbyn on charisma and speaking. At least has the chance to improve.
Eagle can clearly create a broad tent (Quite frankly any tent is an improvement to the bomb crater we have now)
She has proven track record on policy. She has a brain.
And she does not encourage others to think she is God. This is a Huge improvement.
Come off it Danny, you are going to have to do a lot better than that to justify your support for a man who is going to lead Labour to electoral catastrophe.
ok sure, but those links are clearly stupid.
Anything associated with that tag that isn't stupid?
Labour are condemning us to live in a one party state. No, I'm sorry Lib Dems and UKIP don't count, be quiet in the back.
The Great Western electrification is showing - again - how hard and costly it is to do major upgrades to working rail routes.
Out of interest, how do you think Corbyn's views on Trident, immigration, the monarchy, shoot to kill and foreign policy sit with the public?
Rather begs the question as to whether it would simply have been easier for Cameron to carry on.
After the shock of losing the referendum has passed I'm sure Cameron would beat both Boris and May in any vote by miles.
The Yanks haven't used Polaris for ages. They moved to Poseidon and then Trident (which is what we use also, of course).
(Apologies - I couldn't help myself. No offence meant.)
What would the odds have been on that, a few years ago?
What does the PLP do if Corbyn actually wins though ?
HS2 eliminates the affect on the current system, but causes other problems in of itself.
She has a proven track record on policy? What's she done? What does she stand for?
By all accounts she's a good MP, but there's no evidence - and in my view not even any halfway-convincing arguments - that she would have a better chance of winning a General Election than Corbyn.
Why do people think May is a good leader? For keeping her head down in the Referendum - is that it?
If Boris disappears for 5 minutes, there's cries of "where's Boris". But when May avoids taking a stand at all on the most important issue facing Britain in a generation, that somehow makes her good leader material?
It makes no sense.
Hmmm.
@Sunil_Prassanan ; @JosiasJessop
It will be interesting to see whether he continues as an MP, perhaps doing a Gordon, being barely ever seen, but picking up his salary and other perks. Somehow I doubt that's his style.
It was a foreign warplane, coming out of an active warzone, of a type used by a belligerent (Syria), from an airbase adjacent to a Syrian one.
What do you think the British government would do in such circumstances? The press have conniptions about unarmed Russian Bears overflying the North Sea ...
"The EU referendum created a huge divide in Birmingham – with more than three quarters voting to Remain in some wards and the same ratio voting Leave in others.
The Brexit battle in the city was the most fierce in the UK, with 50.4 per cent of more than 450,000 voters wanting to Leave.
New data reveals how the votes differed wildly in different parts of the city.
In all, 22 of Birmingham’s 40 wards voted to Leave, and 18 wanted to remain."
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/eu-referendum-results-your-area-11536368
PB almost needs its own Mr Bercow.
(I know he's made the odd bad call, but he's really rather good I find)