Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
I've gone from completely disinterested to desperate for Leadsom to win. The last 6 months has confirmed what a ghastly mob this tory party are. Leadsom could finish them for good, love it.
I went for a run (well half walk) through Harthill this evening. Never seen so many British flags in all my days !
Where is that?
Harthill is a rural village in North Lanarkshire in Scotland, on the border with the neighbouring county of West Lothian about halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh It lies on the River Almond about 2.5 mi west of the small town of Whitburn.
I thought everyone knew that. "neighbouring" seems otiose though.
I see there is a big Orange Order meeting planned, so are the Union flags for that?
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
I would not say nobody thinks she has the ability. But the point remains, if the fear is the members will pick an insane choice, then it is the MP's job to make sure they don't get presented with that choice in the first place. Either they don't think she is an insane choice, or a large chunk of their MPs are insane, or they are incompetent/think she has no chance.
Well the problem with that is that everyone said tactical voting wasn't allowed.
To do as you say would require explicit tactical voting - or some kind of AV vote - ie May would have qualified for the Final and then all MPs would vote again separately on Leadsom v Gove to pick the 2nd Finalist.
The Tory Party would collapse in those circumstances, or split in two. The membership wouldn't accept having their views overturned.
Well that's exactly what happened in 2003 - the only difference being MPs waited two years to avoid it looking so blatant.
And would it collapse - most of the members aren't active in any way - so their absence wouldn't actually matter in the slightest. My Mum's a member - she pays her sub and goes to one or two coffee mornings per year. The majority of members do the same.
Of course that may appear unkind, but it is the reality.
As a matter of interest what is the turnout percent for Tory leadership ballots of the members?
I was reading about the 1920s/1930s UK economy yesterday. We tried to go back on the Gold Standard @ $4.85.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira .
Britain (I think this predates the UKGBI, so "Britain" not the "UK") has never defaulted on a loan. As the old joke goes, it doesn't have to: it just continually devalues the currency...
That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.
Step forward Ed Miliband.
Well, he does look like Obama when compared with Angela Eagle.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
That's because she isn't.
She has no talent or skill. She has been promoted for what she is not what she can do.
She won't beat him - so the point about electoral appeal is rather lost.
Remember that just nine months ago she came fourth in the race for Deputy Leader IIRC - that is hardly someone who resonates with any electorate.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
1) The Tories wouldn't be able to persuade undecided voters that she supports terrorists 2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent 3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
I was reading about the 1920s/1930s UK economy yesterday. We tried to go back on the Gold Standard @ $4.85.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira .
Britain (I think this predates the UKGBI, so "Britain" not the "UK") has never defaulted on a loan. As the old joke goes, it doesn't have to: it just continually devalues the currency...
That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
The Tory Party would collapse in those circumstances, or split in two. The membership wouldn't accept having their views overturned.
Well that's exactly what happened in 2003 - the only difference being MPs waited two years to avoid it looking so blatant.
And would it collapse - most of the members aren't active in any way - so their absence wouldn't actually matter in the slightest. My Mum's a member - she pays her sub and goes to one or two coffee mornings per year. The majority of members do the same.
Of course that may appear unkind, but it is the reality.
As a matter of interest what is the turnout percent for Tory leadership ballots of the members?
Sorry - don't know.
Wiki says 199,000 actually voted in 2005 - but no turnout %, nor the size of the electorate, is given.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.
Step forward Ed Miliband.
Well, he does look like Obama when compared with Angela Eagle.
"They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq."
Ed Balls? I do hope so, dragging things back to betting, I am on at 60/1
I would not say nobody thinks she has the ability. But the point remains, if the fear is the members will pick an insane choice, then it is the MP's job to make sure they don't get presented with that choice in the first place. Either they don't think she is an insane choice, or a large chunk of their MPs are insane, or they are incompetent/think she has no chance.
Well the problem with that is that everyone said tactical voting wasn't allowed.
To do as you say would require explicit tactical voting - or some kind of AV vote - ie May would have qualified for the Final and then all MPs would vote again separately on Leadsom v Gove to pick the 2nd Finalist.
It's a secret ballot, they could cast votes as they chose - if enough thought Leadsom would be a disaster they could have voted accordingly, no one would know for certain it was tactical. And what does that even mean anyway? There were 3 candidates besides May and Leadsom, and assuming all votes were genuine, the MPs thought Gove and Fox at least were worse (Crabb didn't give them a chance to decide if he was a worse choice). So we have proof Leadsom was deemed more suitable than at least 2 other candidates in the party. That being the case, why couldn't she be suitable to the MPs, even though she was not the first preference of the majority of them? Clearly there were worse options.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
1) The Tories wouldn't be able to persuade undecided voters that she supports terrorists 2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent 3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
Her media team would be people who were full-square behind the doomed Remain campaign -- that doesn't strike me as people who are very competent or very good at reading the public mood.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.
Step forward Ed Miliband.
It is rather hard to vote for anything when you weren't an MP at the time of the vote...
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
1) The Tories wouldn't be able to persuade undecided voters that she supports terrorists 2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent 3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
Her media team would be people who were full-square behind the doomed Remain campaign -- that doesn't strike me as people who are very competent or very good at reading the public mood.
Possibly, that's certainly the weakest argument of the three.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.
Step forward Ed Miliband.
Well, he does look like Obama when compared with Angela Eagle.
"They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq."
Ed Balls? I do hope so, dragging things back to betting, I am on at 60/1
Doubt it -- as far as I know, Balls is the main person blamed by the membership for losing the last election for Labour, due to his forcing of a pro-austerity stance (feelings towards EdM are more mixed, I think).
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
There's no reason at this point to think she won't have the support of most Tory MPs if she wins. Quotes about people quitting the party or being rebels if she wins may or may not be true in the actual event.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
In fairness a PM who thinks Brexit was a bad idea is likely to try to backslide, so if you voted for it you wouldn't be mad to want somebody who agrees with the policy they're supposed to be implementing. After all, wasn't that the reason Cameron gave for resigning in the first place?
That said, I think it says something about the Brexit case that all the MPs who supported it have turned out to be either untrustworthy backstabbing chancers or mad as a box of frogs.
A PM opposed to Brexit (i.e. May) may well be perceived as wanting to backslide when they go into negotiations. The sort of deal the UK can secure will depend on how resolute we are.
Ed Miliband or Harriet Harman would be the most sensible person to be Labour leader at the moment - roughly in the centre of the party and more presentable and credible with the electorate than any other options.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
1) The Tories wouldn't be able to persuade undecided voters that she supports terrorists 2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent 3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
On point 3, she has hardly managed herself well over the past two weeks. Announcements of announcements that just don't happen. That is not an appearance of competence or drive.
She might not appear to support terrorists or want to give over control to the Unions, but she has never once demonstrated the ability to lead. Not even close.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
That's because she isn't.
She has no talent or skill. She has been promoted for what she is not what she can do.
She won't beat him - so the point about electoral appeal is rather lost.
Remember that just nine months ago she came fourth in the race for Deputy Leader IIRC - that is hardly someone who resonates with any electorate.
Well, there are two ways of viewing this: a) she is stalking horse, so it doesn't matter if she can't sit on a toilet the right way around (Trade Mark: Rowen Atkinson) or b) Nobody but nobody is crappier than Jezza, and therefore the unions will wake up smelly the coffee and finally get a grip and swing the vote to save the party.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.
Step forward Ed Miliband.
Well, he does look like Obama when compared with Angela Eagle.
"They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq."
Ed Balls? I do hope so, dragging things back to betting, I am on at 60/1
Doubt it -- as far as I know, Balls is the main person blamed by the membership for losing the last election for Labour, due to his forcing of a pro-austerity stance (feelings towards EdM are more mixed, I think).
More bonkers. Ed Balls spent months and months saying that austerity was the wrong thing to do and then, under extreme pressure from another Ed and his team of idiots, backtracked.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.
Step forward Ed Miliband.
It is rather hard to vote for anything when you weren't an MP at the time of the vote...
Shush, some of us are on at 200/1 on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
There's no reason at this point to think she won't have the support of most Tory MPs if she wins. Quotes about people quitting the party or being rebels if she wins may or may not be true in the actual event.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
In fairness a PM who thinks Brexit was a bad idea is likely to try to backslide, so if you voted for it you wouldn't be mad to want somebody who agrees with the policy they're supposed to be implementing. After all, wasn't that the reason Cameron gave for resigning in the first place?
That said, I think it says something about the Brexit case that all the MPs who supported it have turned out to be either untrustworthy backstabbing chancers or mad as a box of frogs.
A PM opposed to Brexit (i.e. May) may well be perceived as wanting to backslide when they go into negotiations. The sort of deal the UK can secure will depend on how resolute we are.
Isn't that true only to a point?
Someone who goes in with unrealistic expectations could find us crashing out to WTO status with no other trade deals arranged on day 720.
The problem we have is that there is no fall back position.
Yes, yes: China, the US, etc. etc. etc. all want deals with us. Of course they do. But they want them on their terms. (Obviously.) Go read the deals between the US and Australia, or between China and Switzerland. They were - to put it mildly - one sided.
How one sided would our deal be if we had no other options, and our entire trade negotiating team was camped out in Brussels?
I was reading about the 1920s/1930s UK economy yesterday. We tried to go back on the Gold Standard @ $4.85.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira .
Britain (I think this predates the UKGBI, so "Britain" not the "UK") has never defaulted on a loan. As the old joke goes, it doesn't have to: it just continually devalues the currency...
That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
And in my Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present, it states that "In the wake of the end of the end to German reparations in August 1932, France and Britain declared default on their inter-allied war debt to the USA (December 1932)". I believe this was related to the Lausanne Conference but this isn't detailed in my text. My understanding is that the British and French had basically been using the German reparations to pay off their loans to the USA.
Can't recall any unilateral bond extensions, do you have any details? Or was that the manner in which the inter-allied loans was defaulted on (again, this isn't detailed in my text)?
I was reading about the 1920s/1930s UK economy yesterday. We tried to go back on the Gold Standard @ $4.85.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira .
Britain (I think this predates the UKGBI, so "Britain" not the "UK") has never defaulted on a loan. As the old joke goes, it doesn't have to: it just continually devalues the currency...
That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
And in my Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present, it states that "In the wake of the end of the end to German reparations in August 1932, France and Britain declared default on their inter-allied war debt to the USA (December 1932)". I believe this was related to the Lausanne Conference but this isn't detailed in my text. My understanding is that the British and French had basically been using the German reparations to pay off their loans to the USA.
Can't recall any unilateral bond extensions, do you have any details? Or was that the manner in which the inter-allied loans was defaulted on (again, this isn't detailed in my text)?
Yes.
Both those events happened in 1932. The UK WW1 loans were publicly traded in the US and we unilaterally extended the term. Yes, the proximate cause was the fact that Germany wasn't repaying us. (A classic example, by the way, of local optima worsening the system optima.)
In the case of the 1917 War Loan, there was the agreement of creditors, but it was undoubtedly a modification of loan terms. A default in other words.
I was reading about the 1920s/1930s UK economy yesterday. We tried to go back on the Gold Standard @ $4.85.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira .
Britain (I think this predates the UKGBI, so "Britain" not the "UK") has never defaulted on a loan. As the old joke goes, it doesn't have to: it just continually devalues the currency...
That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
And in my Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present, it states that "In the wake of the end of the end to German reparations in August 1932, France and Britain declared default on their inter-allied war debt to the USA (December 1932)". I believe this was related to the Lausanne Conference but this isn't detailed in my text. My understanding is that the British and French had basically been using the German reparations to pay off their loans to the USA.
Can't recall any unilateral bond extensions, do you have any details? Or was that the manner in which the inter-allied loans was defaulted on (again, this isn't detailed in my text)?
Yes.
Both those events happened in 1932. The UK WW1 loans were publicly traded in the US and we unilaterally extended the term. Yes, the proximate cause was the fact that Germany wasn't repaying us. (A classic example, by the way, of local optima worsening the system optima.)
In the case of the 1917 War Loan, there was the agreement of creditors, but it was undoubtedly a modification of loan terms. A default in other words.
Cheers. Nice to fill a hole.
I love my Cambridge Economic History but it's often a bit "big picture" - the finer historical details tend be skipped over in favour of talking about things from a systemic point of view.
Any pointers for anything else to read on this kind of stuff? (I would quite like something that reads more like a history text - with due consideration of historic personages involved in decision making, for instance - rather than one written more as an economic text.)
Ed Miliband or Harriet Harman would be the most sensible person to be Labour leader at the moment - roughly in the centre of the party and more presentable and credible with the electorate than any other options.
Ed Miliband? He was the second worst Labour leader since the War
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
In fairness a PM who thinks Brexit was a bad idea is likely to try to backslide, so if you voted for it you wouldn't be mad to want somebody who agrees with the policy they're supposed to be implementing. After all, wasn't that the reason Cameron gave for resigning in the first place?
That said, I think it says something about the Brexit case that all the MPs who supported it have turned out to be either untrustworthy backstabbing chancers or mad as a box of frogs.
A PM opposed to Brexit (i.e. May) may well be perceived as wanting to backslide when they go into negotiations. The sort of deal the UK can secure will depend on how resolute we are.
Isn't that true only to a point?
Someone who goes in with unrealistic expectations could find us crashing out to WTO status with no other trade deals arranged on day 720.
The problem we have is that there is no fall back position.
Yes, yes: China, the US, etc. etc. etc. all want deals with us. Of course they do. But they want them on their terms. (Obviously.) Go read the deals between the US and Australia, or between China and Switzerland. They were - to put it mildly - one sided.
How one sided would our deal be if we had no other options, and our entire trade negotiating team was camped out in Brussels?
Of course you have to be realistic. But that's very different to going into negotiations perceived as being very willing to roll over and agree to what you are on record as wanting to happen all along.
Our negotiating position is strong. £290bn of imports from the EU compared to £222bn of exports to the EU. £13bn of annual gross contributions to the EU budget, with about £4bn being given back to spend on terms the EU controls. For all the bluster, the EU has much more to lose than the UK. That doesn't mean being unrealistic, so while the hand is strong we have to be careful not to overplay it. However, that is very different from being prepared to roll over and accept something near identical to what we have now.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
Indeed Howard was ideologically little different from IDS but more competent by some distance
The Duchess of York is set to launch an extraordinary multi-million-pound legal battle against the former owners of the News of the World - six years after the newspaper published footage of her apparently offering access to Prince Andrew for cash. The sting - filmed and published in 2010 - appeared to show the former Royal accepting a £27,000 cash deposit from an undercover reporter as part of a £500,000 deal to be introduced to the Prince, then a UK trade envoy.
Ed Miliband or Harriet Harman would be the most sensible person to be Labour leader at the moment - roughly in the centre of the party and more presentable and credible with the electorate than any other options.
Ed Miliband? He was the second worst Labour leader since the War
Our negotiating position is strong... £13bn of annual gross contributions to the EU budget, with about £4bn being given back to spend on terms the EU controls.
Since that money is now going to stop or (under EEA) be severely curtailed, you can't count it as a negotiation plus.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
Experience of running a department is irrelevant, on recent evidence; the two last successful Opposition leaders had no previous ministerial experience at all.
Doubt she'd be perceived as more competent -- unfair as it may be, she comes across as a complete lightweight in media interviews, and she just doesn't pass the "blink test" of imagining her as PM any more than Corbyn does.
She wouldn't have a much stronger Shadow Cabinet -- virtually all of the PLP are useless. Having the likes of Kendall, Umunna and Hunt back, giving a repeat of their carcrash media appearances in the 2015 election, doesn't exactly seem like an asset.
I don't think she's more personable at all -- if anything, that's one of the few redeeming features Corbyn has in the public eye ("I wouldn't want him as prime minister, but atleast he seems like a nice and normal guy"), whereas Eagle comes across as very irritable.
I'll grant you she's better in the Commons, but I'm sceptical of how much weight Joe Public places in PMQs performances anyway
You say it would be a "sensible platform", but it would be very similar to the platform the Remain Campaign just stood on - a platform which was BEATEN. Corbyn obviously doesn't have a great sense of public opinion, but atleast he managed to win and beat the Tories in the May local elections (albeit an unspectacular win), whereas Remain LOST their contest despite having far more institutional advantages. An Eagle platform might get more plaudits from "the experts" than a Corbyn platform would, but the referendum showed how much difference "the experts" make in elections.
The bottom line is, there is more recent evidence of a platform closer to Corbyn winning electoral contests, than there is of a "centrist" platform like Angela Eagle's winning (not least in the EU Referendum).
I've read the article (thank you btw), and it's typical Hannan: disingenuous and blames other people. Much of the article he spends casting LEAVErs as open internationalists seeking free trade and not even slightly mentioning immigration, which is...a rather partial interpretation, to put it mildly. I'm sure some LEAVEers did exactly that (Tyndall for one, and there were others), but many did not and I don't call Michael Gove "Screams At Migrants" for nothing.
There is also the question of "work with who exactly?". The government is not functioning, Leadsome is not a competent PM, Labour is autocoloning, UKIP is dissolving, nobody is driving. So who is this "we" that Hannan wishes REMAIN to work with?
So I'm torn. I want the EEA/EFTA combination that Hannan is too disingenuous to explicitly name, but I don't trust him and I don't think he can deliver.
It's going to be immensely difficult. Try selling EEA / EFTA in Sunderland or West Bromwich.
Why should Sunderland and West Bromwich determine the country's future? Both voted Leave by significantly more than the national average and neither are exactly hotbeds of prosperity, they have nothing to lose from zero immigration and no single market. The wealthy Home Counties do though and if seats there which voted narrowly Leave can be persuaded to back the EEA and EFTA then you have a majority of the country if you add them to the 48% who voted Remain
Prescott [in the Sunday Mirror]: Blair forced us into an illegal war...
It never crossed Prescott's mind to resign, like, er, Robin Cook did?
Isn't Prescott talking with the benefit of hindsight -- and not saying he knew at the time?
The problem with these voices claiming that the war was illegal is that they are not international lawyers and the Chilcot report was explicit in not considering the issue of legality because they were not qualified to do so.
Amazing how many International Law experts have appeared on various Labour benches over the past days.
Prescott doesn't have the background to comment as to the legality of the actions of his government - he simply lacks the knowledge or skills to make that call.
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
In fairness a PM who thinks Brexit was a bad idea is likely to try to backslide, so if you voted for it you wouldn't be mad to want somebody who agrees with the policy they're supposed to be implementing. After all, wasn't that the reason Cameron gave for resigning in the first place?
That said, I think it says something about the Brexit case that all the MPs who supported it have turned out to be either untrustworthy backstabbing chancers or mad as a box of frogs.
A PM opposed to Brexit (i.e. May) may well be perceived as wanting to backslide when they go into negotiations. The sort of deal the UK can secure will depend on how resolute we are.
Isn't that true only to a point?
Someone who goes in with unrealistic expectations could find us crashing out to WTO status with no other trade deals arranged on day 720.
The problem we have is that there is no fall back position.
Yes, yes: China, the US, etc. etc. etc. all want deals with us. Of course they do. But they want them on their terms. (Obviously.) Go read the deals between the US and Australia, or between China and Switzerland. They were - to put it mildly - one sided.
How one sided would our deal be if we had no other options, and our entire trade negotiating team was camped out in Brussels?
Of course you have to be realistic. But that's very different to going into negotiations perceived as being very willing to roll over and agree to what you are on record as wanting to happen all along.
Our negotiating position is strong. £290bn of imports from the EU compared to £222bn of exports to the EU. £13bn of annual gross contributions to the EU budget, with about £4bn being given back to spend on terms the EU controls. For all the bluster, the EU has much more to lose than the UK. That doesn't mean being unrealistic, so while the hand is strong we have to be careful not to overplay it. However, that is very different from being prepared to roll over and accept something near identical to what we have now.
Surely it is the value of exports as a proportion of total exports that is important rather than the absolute numerical value. As a proportion of total exports, the UK must export far more to the EU (about 40%, I believe) than vice versa (20% ish?). This means that it is we who have the weaker hand rather than the EU, and I'm sure they must be fully aware of this.
Prescott [in the Sunday Mirror]: Blair forced us into an illegal war...
It never crossed Prescott's mind to resign, like, er, Robin Cook did?
Isn't Prescott talking with the benefit of hindsight -- and not saying he knew at the time?
The problem with these voices claiming that the war was illegal is that they are not international lawyers and the Chilcot report was explicit in not considering the issue of legality because they were not qualified to do so.
Amazing how many International Law experts have appeared on various Labour benches over the past days.
Prescott doesn't have the background to comment as to the legality of the actions of his government - he simply lacks the knowledge or skills to make that call.
His opinion counts for nothing.
Was it Kissinger who once asked, "by what legality?" But in any case, to concentrate on that narrow point is surely to miss the thrust of Prescott's criticism of Blair, the way he ran Cabinet generally and in particular the move to war.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
What if Eagle ran as a stalking horse among PLP to unseat Corbyn, then got the backing of PLP to tightened up Leadership contest rules before calling another wider contest among membership at time of her choosing before next GE? It would then be typically ironic of the Labour party if they chose to elect yet another male Leader after none of them had the cojones to step up to the plate when the party really needed it?
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
@Danny565 For the PLP to put forward someone who voted for the Iraq war, even as a stalking horse is one of the less insightful political moves of our time...
Prescott [in the Sunday Mirror]: Blair forced us into an illegal war...
It never crossed Prescott's mind to resign, like, er, Robin Cook did?
Isn't Prescott talking with the benefit of hindsight -- and not saying he knew at the time?
The problem with these voices claiming that the war was illegal is that they are not international lawyers and the Chilcot report was explicit in not considering the issue of legality because they were not qualified to do so.
Amazing how many International Law experts have appeared on various Labour benches over the past days.
Prescott doesn't have the background to comment as to the legality of the actions of his government - he simply lacks the knowledge or skills to make that call.
His opinion counts for nothing.
Was it Kissinger who once asked, "by what legality?" But in any case, to concentrate on that narrow point is surely to miss the thrust of Prescott's criticism of Blair, the way he ran Cabinet generally and in particular the move to war.
Prescott was Deputy PM - he had the opportunity to question/challenge - and what did he do?
He is just trying to distance himself - I have no respect for his posturing on this.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
What if Eagle ran as a stalking horse among PLP to unseat Corbyn, then got the backing of PLP to tightened up Leadership contest rules before calling another wider contest among membership at time of her choosing before next GE? It would then be typically ironic of the Labour party if they chose to elect yet another male Leader after none of them had the cojones to step up to the plate when the party really needed it?
fitalass - do you have any views on how Scottish Con members are likely to vote in the leadership election.
I heard one report that 10% of Con members are in Scotland so they are a significant part of the electorate.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
Jarvis is an utter blank. He can act as a wonderful screen onto which people can project all their hopes.
He needs to be tested before he is a credible leader of any party. A good back story is just not enough.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
What if Eagle ran as a stalking horse among PLP to unseat Corbyn, then got the backing of PLP to tightened up Leadership contest rules before calling another wider contest among membership at time of her choosing before next GE? It would then be typically ironic of the Labour party if they chose to elect yet another male Leader after none of them had the cojones to step up to the plate when the party really needed it?
She needs to beat Corbyn and that isn't looking likely. And getting new leadership rules requires rule changes that go beyond the PLP. I don't see Momentum making that easy for her.
If she really had got the balls to act, she would have done so before now. Her weakness has been fatally exposed. Momentum have had 2 more weeks in which to plan and sign up members.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
Why? Anyone who is half sane and competent would be an improvement on Corbyn. Labour has no chance of winning the next election, it just needs someone who at least can do the job of being leader of the opposition not a Marxist sect. After they lose the next election then would be the time to bring on a presentable moderate like Dan Jarvis or Chuka Umunna, the latter of course also opposed the Iraq War
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
Why? Anyone who is half sane and competent would be an improvement on Corbyn. Labour has no chance of winning the next election, it just needs someone who at least can do the job of being leader of the opposition not a Marxist sect. After they lose the next election then would be the time to bring on a presentable moderate like Dan Jarvis or Chuka Umunna, the latter of course also opposed the Iraq War
I think this is the sort of exaggeration that Danny565 was talking about.
Also- you may be prepared to write off the next general election as impossible for Labour to win. But given we don't know when it will be or who the Tory leader will be or even who the Labour leader will be- I think there's a bit more uncertainty...
Of course if you want to offer me 2500-1 on Labour winning the next general election I'm very happy to take you up on it!
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be .
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be
Experience of running a department is irrelevant, on recent evidence; the two last successful Opposition leaders had no previous ministerial experience at all.
Doubt she'd be perceived as more competent -- unfair as it may be, she comes across as a complete lightweight in media interviews, and she just doesn't pass the "blink test" of imagining her as PM any more than Corbyn does.
She wouldn't have a much stronger Shadow Cabinet -- virtually all of the PLP are useless. Having the likes of Kendall, Umunna and Hunt back, giving a repeat of their carcrash media appearances in the 2015 election, doesn't exactly seem like an asset.
I don't think she's more personable at all -- if anything, that's one of the few redeeming features Corbyn has in the public eye ("I wouldn't want him as prime minister, but atleast he seems like a nice and normal guy"), whereas Eagle comes across as very irritable.
I'll grant you she's better in the Commons, but I'm sceptical of how much weight Joe Public places in PMQs performances anyway
You say it would be a "sensible platform", but it would be very similar to the platform the Remain Campaign just stood on - a platform which was BEATEN. Corbyn obviously doesn't have a great sense of public opinion, but atleast he managed to win and beat the Tories in the May local elections (albeit an unspectacular win), whereas Remain LOST their contest despite having far more institutional advantages. An Eagle platform might get more plaudits from "the experts" than a Corbyn platform would, but the referendum showed how much difference "the experts" make in elections.
The bottom line is, there is more recent evidence of a platform closer to Corbyn winning electoral contests, than there is of a "centrist" platform like Angela Eagle's winning (not least in the EU Referendum).
Corbyn had one of the worst local election performances of an opposition leader in modern times, even Hague and Ed Miliband did better and Labour only won London because of Sadiq Khan who kept as much distance from Corbyn as possible. Corbyn also backed Remain but in such an inept and uncommitted fashion he might as well not have backed it at all and he played his part in the Remain defeat too. He is generally polling no better than Ed Miliband did last May and in some cases clearly worse, he adds nothing to Labour other than ideological purity and the average swing voter would not trust him to organise a village fete let alone run the country, what have they got to lose by dumping him?
Jarvis is an utter blank. He can act as a wonderful screen onto which people can project all their hopes.
He needs to be tested before he is a credible leader of any party. A good back story is just not enough.
Yes I agree- not seen enough of him to know where he stands or how effective he could be. The back story would be a big advantage though- would be able to close down foreign policy/being tough etc. as an issue following Corbyn.
Jarvis is an utter blank. He can act as a wonderful screen onto which people can project all their hopes.
He needs to be tested before he is a credible leader of any party. A good back story is just not enough.
Yes I agree- not seen enough of him to know where he stands or how effective he could be. The back story would be a big advantage though- would be able to close down foreign policy/being tough etc. as an issue following Corbyn.
Would it, though? Andrea Leadsom's time in the City does not seem to have closed down many questions. CCHQ would google swiftboating the day after Jarvis was elected.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't ex?
Why? Anyone who is half sane and competent would be an improveme
I think this is the sort of exaggeration that Danny565 was talking about.
Also- you may be prepared to write off the next general election as impossible for Labour to win. But given we don't know when it will be or who the Tory leader will be or even who the Labour leader will be- I think there's a bit more uncertainty...
Of course if you want to offer me 2500-1 on Labour winning the next general election I'm very happy to take you up on it!
No it is no exaggeration, if Labour does not get rid of Corbyn and he leads them into the next election there is a very real chance the party ceases to exist and never wins another election again. The Tories faced a similar scenario under IDS but correctly dispatched him and even IDS was better than Corbyn. In the present circumstances there may not be a certain Tory victory at the next election but given Labour's present leadership I would say the LDs or even UKIP would make a more plausible alternative government than Labour under him
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
You say it would be a "sensible platform", but it would be very similar to the platform the Remain Campaign just stood on - a platform which was BEATEN. Corbyn obviously doesn't have a great sense of public opinion, but atleast he managed to win and beat the Tories in the May local elections (albeit an unspectacular win), whereas Remain LOST their contest despite having far more institutional advantages. An Eagle platform might get more plaudits from "the experts" than a Corbyn platform would, but the referendum showed how much difference "the experts" make in elections.
The bottom line is, there is more recent evidence of a platform closer to Corbyn winning electoral contests, than there is of a "centrist" platform like Angela Eagle's winning (not least in the EU Referendum).
The dynamics are totally different between a First Past the Post General Election and a referendum. If Labour had offered a return to sovereign rule and cuts to immigraton, all under a nationalistic banner against a centre ground Tory party at last years election of course they would have won.
But in reality the difference between parties in a General Elections under FPTP are nowhere near as large. Instead it's a binary choice for government between two parties fighting to win over the same narrow group of voters. That's why factors such as perceived economic competence and Prime Minister choice become so important.
UKIP showed last May how difficult it is to turn scattered anti-establishment feeling into parliamentary seats under FPTP. If anything the local elections confirmed worries about Corbyn where votes were stacked up in Metropolitan/University seats, yet Labour went backwards in the vital region of the Midlands.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
There's probably no-one, in truth, who can beat Corbyn under the existing rules, although the best chance might have been a woman (Eagle, not included).
After the ludicrous decision to shortlist two women for the Tory leadership - degrading, predictably, into an irrelevant catfight within hours - Labour can hardly pick a woman leader now...
White Van Man would just think "Jeez, what's in any of this for me?", and look elsewhere for a depository for his vote.
Yes I agree- not seen enough of him to know where he stands or how effective he could be. The back story would be a big advantage though- would be able to close down foreign policy/being tough etc. as an issue following Corbyn.
Would it, though? Andrea Leadsom's time in the City does not seem to have closed down many questions. CCHQ would google swiftboating the day after Jarvis was elected.
I think we can trust CCHQ not to stoop to such underhand tactics because... well... um... okay you may have a point!
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't ex?
Why? Anyone who is half sane and competent would be an improveme
I think this is the sort of exaggeration that Danny565 was talking about.
Also- you may be prepared to write off the next general election as impossible for Labour to win. But given we don't know when it will be or who the Tory leader will be or even who the Labour leader will be- I think there's a bit more uncertainty...
Of course if you want to offer me 2500-1 on Labour winning the next general election I'm very happy to take you up on it!
No it is no exaggeration, if Labour does not get rid of Corbyn and he leads them into the next election there is a very real chance the party ceases to exist and never wins another election again. The Tories faced a similar scenario under IDS but correctly dispatched him and even IDS was better than Corbyn. In the present circumstances there may not be a certain Tory victory at the next election but given Labour's present leadership I would say the LDs or even UKIP would make a more plausible alternative government than Labour under him
IDS actually did quite well at the ballot box; MPs panicked because Blair crushed him at PMQs every week, but there is no real evidence the Conservative Party would have been wiped out or that Howard delivered a better result than IDS would have done at GE 2005.
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
There's probably no-one, in truth, who can beat Corbyn under the existing rules, although the best chance might have been a woman (Eagle, not included).
After the ludicrous decision to shortlist two women for the Tory leadership - degrading, predictably, into an irrelevant catfight within hours - Labour can hardly pick a woman leader now...
White Van Man would just think "Jeez, what's in any of this for me?", and look elsewhere for a depository for his vote.
"She needs to beat Corbyn and that isn't looking likely. And getting new leadership rules requires rule changes that go beyond the PLP. I don't see Momentum making that easy for her.
If she really had got the balls to act, she would have done so before now. Her weakness has been fatally exposed. Momentum have had 2 more weeks in which to plan and sign up members."
@oxfordsimon I am just musing out loud about an alternative to the very clear weakness or effectiveness of the whole PLP, and not just Angela Eagles over the last two weeks. Absolutely agree about the what a tough task changing the Labour Leadership rules would be, but not impossible if Eagles with backing of majority of PLP can finally get Corbyn to resign rather than split the party even further. She can then seek the full backing of the PLP to become Leader without a contest right now.
It is interesting that Burnham has stuck with Corbyn by staying in Shadow Cabinet when so many others in PLP resigned. Burnham really is the Labour Boris Johnson when it come to putting his personal ambitions before those of his party, obviously has an eye on appealing to the very Corbyn supporters in membership should others in party force him to go. I just cannot see him ever getting the backing of the wider PLP now as a result.
We have Corbyn interviewed by Marr, then followed by the Andrew Neil interview with Angela Eagles later this morning. That Corbyn has gone for Marr rather than Neil revealing, but suspect Eagles interview will be more significant. After the original Eagle briefings of a Leadership challenge came to nothing, and with some saying that it was dead in the water by last Thursday. Now clear briefings it is on again, but has that got something to with this equally significant political development tweeted by Andrew Neil earlier on Saturday?
Twitter Andrew Neil @afneil 11h11 hours ago When friends fall out: Len McCluskey says Tom Watson not meeting re Corbyn "act of sabotage fraught with peril for the future of the party"
And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
She has experience of running a department She'd likely be perceived more competent. She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet. She's much more personable. She's a better speaker in the House of Commons She has a working class background and is not from Islington. She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
There's probably no-one, in truth, who can beat Corbyn under the existing rules, although the best chance might have been a woman (Eagle, not included).
After the ludicrous decision to shortlist two women for the Tory leadership - degrading, predictably, into an irrelevant catfight within hours - Labour can hardly pick a woman leader now...
White Van Man would just think "Jeez, what's in any of this for me?", and look elsewhere for a depository for his vote.
Still holding out hopes for Mary Creagh ?
She once seemed a rational choice, to enable Labour to move forward from this mess, with plenty of positives going for her.
The fly in the ointment is she would now be guaranteed to be facing another woman, which I can't see working for at least 50% of the voters...
Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't ex?
Why? Anyone who is half sane and competent would be an improveme
I think this is the sort of exaggeration that Danny565 was talking about.
Also- you may be prepared to write off the next general election as impossible for Labour to win. But given we don't know when it will be or who the Tory leader will be or even who the Labour leader will be- I think there's a bit more uncertainty...
Of course if you want to offer me 2500-1 on Labour winning the next general election I'm very happy to take you up on it!
No it is no exaggeration, if Labour does not get rid of Corbyn and he leads them into the next election there is a very real chance the party ceases to exist and never wins another election again. The Tories faced a similar scenario under IDS but correctly dispatched him and even IDS was better than Corbyn. In the present circumstances there may not be a certain Tory victory at the next election but given Labour's present leadership I would say the LDs or even UKIP would make a more plausible alternative government than Labour under him
IDS actually did quite well at the ballot box; MPs panicked because Blair crushed him at PMQs every week, but there is no real evidence the Conservative Party would have been wiped out or that Howard delivered a better result than IDS would have done at GE 2005.
No and Labour under Corbyn would probably not get wiped out either but in the IDS years the Tories were not really the main party of opposition, that was the LDs, just as in the Corbyn years Labour are not really the main party of opposition, that is UKIP and the SNP. Goodnight
"Solar power has hit new record highs in the UK, providing almost a quarter of the country's electricity at one point last month, analysis shows. The solar industry estimates the country now has almost 12 gigawatts (GW) of solar panels, on homes, offices, warehouses, schools and other buildings and in solar farms - enough to power the equivalent of 3.8 million homes. New analysis by MyGridGB for the Solar Trade Association (STA) shows that solar power hit a new peak of meeting 23.9% of demand in the early afternoon on June 5."
(Actually, having known the people involved, I'd say the report is pretty accurate...)
Any word on when we're going to move away from Kinder, Küche, Kirche, and begin a proper debate on what either of these candidates (if any) have to offer the country in its hour of need?
(Actually, having known the people involved, I'd say the report is pretty accurate...)
Any word on when we're going to move away from Kinder, Küche, Kirche, and begin a proper debate on what either of these candidates (if any) have to offer the country in its hour of need?
Comments
"What Leadsom urgently needs is a skilled media manager whose advice she will take. At moment her operation making Seamus Milne look smart"
twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/751836849191194624
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603246/Winston-Churchill-s-grandson-MP-Nicholas-Soames-tells-fellow-Tory-MP-F-c-party-s-civil-war-deepens.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
To do as you say would require explicit tactical voting - or some kind of AV vote - ie May would have qualified for the Final and then all MPs would vote again separately on Leadsom v Gove to pick the 2nd Finalist.
Referendum set destination but not route.
"John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"
He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.
Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
Come back!
Step forward Ed Miliband.
She has no talent or skill. She has been promoted for what she is not what she can do.
She won't beat him - so the point about electoral appeal is rather lost.
Remember that just nine months ago she came fourth in the race for Deputy Leader IIRC - that is hardly someone who resonates with any electorate.
2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent
3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
Wiki says 199,000 actually voted in 2005 - but no turnout %, nor the size of the electorate, is given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005
Ed Balls? I do hope so, dragging things back to betting, I am on at 60/1
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/leadsoms-enemies-stick-the-knife-in-g0psn6s73
Behind paywall obviously.
She might not appear to support terrorists or want to give over control to the Unions, but she has never once demonstrated the ability to lead. Not even close.
Yvette Cooper
Louise Mensch
John Hemming
Nick Palmer
Stewart Jackson
Someone who goes in with unrealistic expectations could find us crashing out to WTO status with no other trade deals arranged on day 720.
The problem we have is that there is no fall back position.
Yes, yes: China, the US, etc. etc. etc. all want deals with us. Of course they do. But they want them on their terms. (Obviously.) Go read the deals between the US and Australia, or between China and Switzerland. They were - to put it mildly - one sided.
How one sided would our deal be if we had no other options, and our entire trade negotiating team was camped out in Brussels?
Neville Chamberlain changed the coupon on some War Loans from 5% to 3.5%, on a vaguely voluntary basis but I believe this would these days be classified as a default. (Link is to Hansard.)
And in my Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present, it states that "In the wake of the end of the end to German reparations in August 1932, France and Britain declared default on their inter-allied war debt to the USA (December 1932)". I believe this was related to the Lausanne Conference but this isn't detailed in my text. My understanding is that the British and French had basically been using the German reparations to pay off their loans to the USA.
Can't recall any unilateral bond extensions, do you have any details? Or was that the manner in which the inter-allied loans was defaulted on (again, this isn't detailed in my text)?
Both those events happened in 1932. The UK WW1 loans were publicly traded in the US and we unilaterally extended the term. Yes, the proximate cause was the fact that Germany wasn't repaying us. (A classic example, by the way, of local optima worsening the system optima.)
In the case of the 1917 War Loan, there was the agreement of creditors, but it was undoubtedly a modification of loan terms. A default in other words.
I have now read the Institute of Government and Electoral Commission links you posted today/yesterday. Interesting, thank you
I love my Cambridge Economic History but it's often a bit "big picture" - the finer historical details tend be skipped over in favour of talking about things from a systemic point of view.
Any pointers for anything else to read on this kind of stuff? (I would quite like something that reads more like a history text - with due consideration of historic personages involved in decision making, for instance - rather than one written more as an economic text.)
Our negotiating position is strong. £290bn of imports from the EU compared to £222bn of exports to the EU. £13bn of annual gross contributions to the EU budget, with about £4bn being given back to spend on terms the EU controls. For all the bluster, the EU has much more to lose than the UK. That doesn't mean being unrealistic, so while the hand is strong we have to be careful not to overplay it. However, that is very different from being prepared to roll over and accept something near identical to what we have now.
She has experience of running a department
She'd likely be perceived more competent.
She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet.
She's much more personable.
She's a better speaker in the House of Commons
She has a working class background and is not from Islington.
She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682537/Sir-Cliff-sues-BBC-1million-Star-s-revenge-controversial-live-TV-broadcast-police-raid-home.html
The Duchess of York is set to launch an extraordinary multi-million-pound legal battle against the former owners of the News of the World - six years after the newspaper published footage of her apparently offering access to Prince Andrew for cash. The sting - filmed and published in 2010 - appeared to show the former Royal accepting a £27,000 cash deposit from an undercover reporter as part of a £500,000 deal to be introduced to the Prince, then a UK trade envoy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682675/Debt-ridden-Fergie-Rupert-Murdoch-s-paper-millions-Prince-Andrew-sting.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.
Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.
I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
Doubt she'd be perceived as more competent -- unfair as it may be, she comes across as a complete lightweight in media interviews, and she just doesn't pass the "blink test" of imagining her as PM any more than Corbyn does.
She wouldn't have a much stronger Shadow Cabinet -- virtually all of the PLP are useless. Having the likes of Kendall, Umunna and Hunt back, giving a repeat of their carcrash media appearances in the 2015 election, doesn't exactly seem like an asset.
I don't think she's more personable at all -- if anything, that's one of the few redeeming features Corbyn has in the public eye ("I wouldn't want him as prime minister, but atleast he seems like a nice and normal guy"), whereas Eagle comes across as very irritable.
I'll grant you she's better in the Commons, but I'm sceptical of how much weight Joe Public places in PMQs performances anyway
You say it would be a "sensible platform", but it would be very similar to the platform the Remain Campaign just stood on - a platform which was BEATEN. Corbyn obviously doesn't have a great sense of public opinion, but atleast he managed to win and beat the Tories in the May local elections (albeit an unspectacular win), whereas Remain LOST their contest despite having far more institutional advantages. An Eagle platform might get more plaudits from "the experts" than a Corbyn platform would, but the referendum showed how much difference "the experts" make in elections.
The bottom line is, there is more recent evidence of a platform closer to Corbyn winning electoral contests, than there is of a "centrist" platform like Angela Eagle's winning (not least in the EU Referendum).
https://twitter.com/NickBolesMP/status/751899588781539328
The wealthy Home Counties do though and if seats there which voted narrowly Leave can be persuaded to back the EEA and EFTA then you have a majority of the country if you add them to the 48% who voted Remain
Amazing how many International Law experts have appeared on various Labour benches over the past days.
Prescott doesn't have the background to comment as to the legality of the actions of his government - he simply lacks the knowledge or skills to make that call.
His opinion counts for nothing.
(Only kidding).
If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.
Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
He is just trying to distance himself - I have no respect for his posturing on this.
I heard one report that 10% of Con members are in Scotland so they are a significant part of the electorate.
He needs to be tested before he is a credible leader of any party. A good back story is just not enough.
If she really had got the balls to act, she would have done so before now. Her weakness has been fatally exposed. Momentum have had 2 more weeks in which to plan and sign up members.
Also- you may be prepared to write off the next general election as impossible for Labour to win. But given we don't know when it will be or who the Tory leader will be or even who the Labour leader will be- I think there's a bit more uncertainty...
Of course if you want to offer me 2500-1 on Labour winning the next general election I'm very happy to take you up on it!
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-224.htm
Someone please tell the SNP that Scotland is only a region in the eyes of the E.U.
The dynamics are totally different between a First Past the Post General Election and a referendum. If Labour had offered a return to sovereign rule and cuts to immigraton, all under a nationalistic banner against a centre ground Tory party at last years election of course they would have won.
But in reality the difference between parties in a General Elections under FPTP are nowhere near as large. Instead it's a binary choice for government between two parties fighting to win over the same narrow group of voters. That's why factors such as perceived economic competence and Prime Minister choice become so important.
UKIP showed last May how difficult it is to turn scattered anti-establishment feeling into parliamentary seats under FPTP. If anything the local elections confirmed worries about Corbyn where votes were stacked up in Metropolitan/University seats, yet Labour went backwards in the vital region of the Midlands.
After the ludicrous decision to shortlist two women for the Tory leadership - degrading, predictably, into an irrelevant catfight within hours - Labour can hardly pick a woman leader now...
White Van Man would just think "Jeez, what's in any of this for me?", and look elsewhere for a depository for his vote.
If she really had got the balls to act, she would have done so before now. Her weakness has been fatally exposed. Momentum have had 2 more weeks in which to plan and sign up members."
@oxfordsimon I am just musing out loud about an alternative to the very clear weakness or effectiveness of the whole PLP, and not just Angela Eagles over the last two weeks. Absolutely agree about the what a tough task changing the Labour Leadership rules would be, but not impossible if Eagles with backing of majority of PLP can finally get Corbyn to resign rather than split the party even further. She can then seek the full backing of the PLP to become Leader without a contest right now.
It is interesting that Burnham has stuck with Corbyn by staying in Shadow Cabinet when so many others in PLP resigned. Burnham really is the Labour Boris Johnson when it come to putting his personal ambitions before those of his party, obviously has an eye on appealing to the very Corbyn supporters in membership should others in party force him to go. I just cannot see him ever getting the backing of the wider PLP now as a result.
We have Corbyn interviewed by Marr, then followed by the Andrew Neil interview with Angela Eagles later this morning. That Corbyn has gone for Marr rather than Neil revealing, but suspect Eagles interview will be more significant. After the original Eagle briefings of a Leadership challenge came to nothing, and with some saying that it was dead in the water by last Thursday. Now clear briefings it is on again, but has that got something to with this equally significant political development tweeted by Andrew Neil earlier on Saturday?
Twitter
Andrew Neil @afneil 11h11 hours ago
When friends fall out: Len McCluskey says Tom Watson not meeting re Corbyn "act of sabotage fraught with peril for the future of the party"
The fly in the ointment is she would now be guaranteed to be facing another woman, which I can't see working for at least 50% of the voters...
"Solar power has hit new record highs in the UK, providing almost a quarter of the country's electricity at one point last month, analysis shows.
The solar industry estimates the country now has almost 12 gigawatts (GW) of solar panels, on homes, offices, warehouses, schools and other buildings and in solar farms - enough to power the equivalent of 3.8 million homes.
New analysis by MyGridGB for the Solar Trade Association (STA) shows that solar power hit a new peak of meeting 23.9% of demand in the early afternoon on June 5."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3672902/Solar-power-sees-record-high-June.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/the-oxford-romance-that-has-guided-theresa-may-from-tragedy-to-t/
(Actually, having known the people involved, I'd say the report is pretty accurate...)