You're merely showing how disconnected you are from the communities you work in. Most people in manufacturing and construction have already factored in some pain. However they will simply roll their eyes and say well the buggers would have shut them anyways. Which of course is the case.
Dave and George were right, 'twas ever thus
Isn't this the real problem for you? You can't accept that the two numpties you put all your political faith in have been revealed as a pair of charlatans. There were many of us who were happy to tell you as much, that without all the advantages of money and media support Cameron was the Emperor without clothes but your blind faith was absolute. No doubt it will all be blamed on lies, somewhat fittingly when you consider how often the Tory party has benefited from lies about the Labour party in the popular press. But a better PM would never have lost this referendum. A better PM in 2010 would have understood the sense of injustice in imposing austerity (particularly in local government in poor areas) after a financial crisis and then cosying up to the city again, big donations gratefully accepted. A better PM would have grasped the anti-establishment feeling long in the air and looked to ameliorate it. A better PM would have understood that for decades large areas of the UK have suffered economically and this wasn't going to be changed through corporation tax cuts, enterprise zones and directly elected mayors. I tried to convince you he was an amateur but you wouldn't believe it.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
With that extra £350m going to the NHS each week hopefully they'll be able to schedule that operation to remove both chips from your shoulders
Also on the BBC Politics show today was a section, presented by a young woman from the remain campaign, analysing where it all went wrong for them.
Apparently, believing that parroting "It's the economy stupid" would resonate was one of their major misjudgements
It reminded me of the "alleged" story about the Queen asking her dinner guests to give her three good reasons to stay in the EU. Also given her comments at the opening of the Scottish Parliament "that a period of quiet reflection would be advisable" (I paraphrase) what a wise person she is. She makes our modern day politicians look like pygmies.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
Well quite. What reinforces the mindset for me is Leavers in City occupations being happy with EEA and claiming this is what Leave meant.
For all those 2.8m voters who got off the sofa - it wasn't. Nor for those who feel their local culture has been undermined or their life chances ruined by FoM.
It's a daily boring meme on here that Brexit was all about immigration, as if that an inherently EVIL thing = these views and people don't deserve a vote. Urgh!!
Obviously that's either snobbery or totally missing the point. I voted for Leave primarily on sovereignty, and secondly on the cultural symptom impact of immigration.
Social cohesion is based on integration, not cultural vandalism/feeling a foreigner on your own street.
Governments can throw money at local services - it can't make your hometown feel like home again.
The AMS / Scottish system is fine for Westminster use. The only real downsides are that it "creates 2 tiers of MPs", and that just doesn't seem like a real downside, it doesn't materially change anything. it retains constituency links, broadly proportional, simple system. Hard to see why it's suitable for Scotland, Wales, London, but not the UK as a whole!
A good question, but since thinking about county-based multi-member constituencies, I've realised that I just don't like the concept of artificial single-member constituencies being drawn up and redrawn to desperately create equal electorate divisions in areas where there simply are no genuine community boundaries. I know the Boundaries Commission try to create their artificial divisions with some basis in natural communities, but the difficulty they have and the amount of challenges they're subject to unerscores how difficult that is. I mean - I'm in a village on the outskirts of Abingdon. Abingdon's in "Oxford West and Abingdon", that easily and intuitive natural community... But, on looking it up, I'm actually in "Wantage" (the town of Wantage is, by the way, several times further away from me than Abingdon and has very little to do with me here - or people in Didcot, which is in another direction yet also in Wantage). I can come off the A34 near Didcot, in the constituency of Wantage, drive north under a mile and be in the constituency of Henley (the town of Henley is halfway to Reading from here, in another direction altogether) and into Oxford West and Abingdon (whilst being a lot further away from either Oxford (West or East) and Abingdon). Many people have no clue what constituency they're in. Which, given some constituencies ("Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey", "East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow", "Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb", probably) is understandable.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the young woman who was on the Sunday Politics who did the section on the Remain campaign's failure, the one who Theresa May has just hired?
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the young woman who was on the Sunday Politics who did the section on the Remain campaign's failure, the one who Theresa May has just hired?
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
With that extra £350m going to the NHS each week hopefully they'll be able to schedule that operation to remove both chips from your shoulders
Pre-referendum:
Remainers: "voting Brexit will have a negative effect on the economy, and the biggest losers will not be the well-off but those is the poorest communities - sadly those who are at the forefront of the "Leave" surge, in part duped by the dishonesty of the Leave campaign.
Leavers: "you don't care about these people, you're just trying to scare them into voting remain"
Post referendum:
Remainers: "as we predicted Brexit is having a negative effect on the economy, and the biggest losers are not the well-off but those in the poorest communities - and sadly many of those who have voted for what they are now experiencing".
Leavers: "crocodile tears, you never cared about these people, you were just scaremongering..."
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the young woman who was on the Sunday Politics who did the section on the Remain campaign's failure, the one who Theresa May has just hired?
AA Gill's restaurant review this week is the Castle Inn, Bungay, Suffolk. 4 stars for both food and atmosphere. Nice to see him out of London for a change.
I was amazed to learn (or relearn) that he was married to Amber Rudd.
Umm, before the referendum - I rather liked AA Gill's determination to offend. Since it started, I've found him very unattractive - being married to Ms Rudd doesn't help.
The whole referendum has exposed many for their true selves. And many in the media aren't winning too many friends. I can think of at least a dozen or so I've stopped following on Twitter for their anti-democratic, rude or frankly snotty views of 52% of the population.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the young woman who was on the Sunday Politics who did the section on the Remain campaign's failure, the one who Theresa May has just hired?
Yes.
Hired in what capacity?
Oopps! I was wrong. Was confusing Lucy Thomas with Alison Griffiths. My apologies.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Which is why they'll need to talk to the big donors about seed funding. After that they'll need to build up members and fast. Start engaging the new members and see if the likes of our own @SouthamObserver, @Jobabob, @Roger and @tyson are more than just all talk. Solicit donations of up to £1000 per year from as many middle class types as possible.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
With that extra £350m going to the NHS each week hopefully they'll be able to schedule that operation to remove both chips from your shoulders
Pre-referendum:
Remainers: "voting Brexit will have a negative effect on the economy, and the biggest losers will not be the well-off but those is the poorest communities - sadly those who are at the forefront of the "Leave" surge, in part duped by the dishonesty of the Leave campaign.
Leavers: "you don't care about these people, you're just trying to scare them into voting remain"
Post referendum:
Remainers: "as we predicted Brexit is having a negative effect on the economy, and the biggest losers are not the well-off but those in the poorest communities - and sadly many of those who have voted for what they are now experiencing".
Leavers: "crocodile tears, you never cared about these people, you were just scaremongering..."
That's not what I said. But do continue to win your battles against straw men of your own making.
Mr. Hall, I think that's true (both parts, the economy and the 'stupid' aspect).
Rich, southern metropolitans telling people from ex mining towns that they should vote Remain or else Cameron will go, and City types will have their job security threatened, with the added bonus of insulting them while they do so.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
They will be able to match the Tory party in donors and donations.
'1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen. '
8. 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government?'
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Which is why they'll need to talk to the big donors about seed funding. After that they'll need to build up members and fast. Start engaging the new members and see if the likes of our own @SouthamObserver, @Jobabob, @Roger and @tyson are more than just all talk. Solicit donations of up to £1000 per year from as many middle class types as possible.
I think a new party with a strong base of MPs would attract a lot of donors. In principle, I'd be prepared to make a decent (£1,000) annual donation and I imagine people a lot better off than me would pay in very sizeable amounts. I am sure that will happen if JC is re-elected.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Which is why they'll need to talk to the big donors about seed funding. After that they'll need to build up members and fast. Start engaging the new members and see if the likes of our own @SouthamObserver, @Jobabob, @Roger and @tyson are more than just all talk. Solicit donations of up to £1000 per year from as many middle class types as possible.
Really? Regularly? To replace the Unite funding et al of ...
At least 14 unions affiliate to Labour but a huge bulk of the funding comes from five unions that in 2014 affiliated 2,032,297 political levy paying members who provide the party with £5.55m in annual income.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
With that extra £350m going to the NHS each week hopefully they'll be able to schedule that operation to remove both chips from your shoulders
Hey I'm in tune with the nation, you not so much... :-)
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
I don't know. But reselections in the wake of a Corbyn victory will drive a lot of MPs out of Labour. The Co-operative party currently has 25 MPs who sit on the Labour benches.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
They will be able to match the Tory party in donors and donations.
Once the union link and influence goes a lot of very wealthy people will be amenable to making donations.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
Brexit is killing our country. We need Leadsom to sort this mess out.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
With that extra £350m going to the NHS each week hopefully they'll be able to schedule that operation to remove both chips from your shoulders
Hey I'm in tune with the nation, you not so much... :-)
I'm used to being an oppressed minority in this country, us working class Northerners have a hard life
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
I very much doubt a split off party would attract anything like 120 MPs. There is obviously an intransigent hardcore of 40-50 MPs who would rather be in opposition than in government under Corbyn but most of the rest who signed the motion are followers of whichever way the wind blows who got panicked into following the chicken coup.
It rained today just when I forgot my coat. Bloody Brexit! I saw a dead slug on the path - that never happened before June 23rd.
Being so miserable is the only thing that keeps me happy now. It's all I have left after the Old Gits have ruined my future. They had all the fun, what with their council houses and polio and TB and their patched-up hand-me-down clothes. They've gone and made our foreign holidays more expensive too, and as for our gap years ... mater and pater have had to sack the gardener to pay for it. It's all too much, life isn't worth living now.
I'm treading as softly as I can because I'm treading on their dreams, but it's hard to feel sympathy for spoilt children.
Most Remainers are in acceptance phase now, but the outliers are very funny.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Which is why they'll need to talk to the big donors about seed funding. After that they'll need to build up members and fast. Start engaging the new members and see if the likes of our own @SouthamObserver, @Jobabob, @Roger and @tyson are more than just all talk. Solicit donations of up to £1000 per year from as many middle class types as possible.
Really? Regularly? To replace the Unite funding et al of ...
At least 14 unions affiliate to Labour but a huge bulk of the funding comes from five unions that in 2014 affiliated 2,032,297 political levy paying members who provide the party with £5.55m in annual income.
They'll be a new party with no real outgoings, no local party offices and no debt. They'll need the seed funding to get a HQ building and after that they'll have to build up slowly and begin to get councillors and members to defect to the new party.
Its not easy, but the alternative of knuckling under the hard left for another 10 years seems bleak enough to try.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
They will be able to match the Tory party in donors and donations.
Once the union link and influence goes a lot of very wealthy people will be amenable to making donations.
Not really what the country needs, another party completely in thrall to the super-wealthy, though, is it? They have the Tories serving their needs very well.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
I don't know. But reselections in the wake of a Corbyn victory will drive a lot of MPs out of Labour. The Co-operative party currently has 25 MPs who sit on the Labour benches.
I bet a decent sized part of the 172 wouldn't want to form a split even if they lost the upcoming leadership election, they would prefer to have 1 labour party. But, if the split does actually happen and takes a number of important MPs with it, then there is surely less interest for the wavering types to remain with Continuity Labour. Probably lots of those 172 don't want a split, but if a split does happen, there is no status quo, keep your head down, option for them anymore.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
With that extra £350m going to the NHS each week hopefully they'll be able to schedule that operation to remove both chips from your shoulders
Hey I'm in tune with the nation, you not so much... :-)
I'm used to being an oppressed minority in this country, us working class Northerners have a hard life
It were harder in my day, back then lawyers were something only southern nancies used.
As I mention, I'll try and get a mid-season review knocked up before Hungary (a fortnight away). It may contain a special extra secret thingummyjig. If I remember. Which, given I forgot the name of the second most important character in a book about a month after releasing it, remains open to doubt.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
I very much doubt a split off party would attract anything like 120 MPs. There is obviously an intransigent hardcore of 40-50 MPs who would rather be in opposition than in government under Corbyn but most of the rest who signed the motion are followers of whichever way the wind blows who got panicked into following the chicken coup.
There was a time when honest leavers were quite happy to acknowledge that Brexit would have a direct negative economic consequence for many people. They just argued that the job losses that resulted would be more than compensated by increased job creation as a result of increased trade with the wider world. Of course those losing jobs as a result of the former, wouldn't necessarily be those gaining jobs as a result of the latter (if it happened), but that was a minor detail that was fudged a little bit so as not to scare the horses.
Now the only thing that is certain amongst the hard core is that any job losses occurring would probably have happened anyway, and definitely are NOT the result of the Brexit vote...
Cobblers. Brexiteers made a judgement call - take the workers at Nissan in Sunderland as a yardstick.
We take the piss out of Remainers who try to blame every job loss on Brexit for pathetically transparent reasons. We've been served up a diet of micro woe stories on here all attributed to Brexit. These would never have seen the light of day in other circumstances.
Brexit is a very handy figleaf for troubled businesses to blame - Hell, I'd have done it myself.
when did remainers ever give a shit about industrial workers losing their jobs ? Bankers yes, but grubby jobs ? Nah.
With that extra £350m going to the NHS each week hopefully they'll be able to schedule that operation to remove both chips from your shoulders
Hey I'm in tune with the nation, you not so much... :-)
I'm used to being an oppressed minority in this country, us working class Northerners have a hard life
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
They will be able to match the Tory party in donors and donations.
Once the union link and influence goes a lot of very wealthy people will be amenable to making donations.
You're a member now. Are you keen on giving serious money?
I can't help noticing the gulf between those with a shed load of cash and political will, compared to those who are members and don't donate much at all beyond membership. This applies to all Parties.
GE or specific campaigns are another matter. It's unsexy bread and rations that require funding.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
I very much doubt a split off party would attract anything like 120 MPs. There is obviously an intransigent hardcore of 40-50 MPs who would rather be in opposition than in government under Corbyn but most of the rest who signed the motion are followers of whichever way the wind blows who got panicked into following the chicken coup.
Government under Corbyn.
Literally all of my lols.
You won't be laughing about government under Leadsom.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
They will be able to match the Tory party in donors and donations.
Once the union link and influence goes a lot of very wealthy people will be amenable to making donations.
Not really what the country needs, another party completely in thrall to the super-wealthy, though, is it? They have the Tories serving their needs very well.
The country needs a credible alternative to the Tories. As the state does not fund political parties, donations are the only option. Labour's reliance on union cash has significantly diminished its creative thinking and common sense, as current events demonstrate.
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
Sorry but if all these people just want a protest movement and don't want to win power... what were they doing in 2010 when they voted for the Milibands?
Splitting your party is probably the closest thing to a guarantee of electoral defeat in a FPTP system.
I don't know. But reselections in the wake of a Corbyn victory will drive a lot of MPs out of Labour. The Co-operative party currently has 25 MPs who sit on the Labour benches.
I'm not sure how this is relevant? Essentially Labour PPCs have the option, if they are Coop Party members, to seek Coop endorsement as well. I was urged to do so - the attraction is a mixture of affection for the cooperative business model and the prospect of money for the campaign from the Coop Party. It doesn't indicate anything in particular about the political stance of the MP. (I didn't do it because I didn't feel I could claim an honest special attachment to the coop system - in my case it would have been mostly for the money.)
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
I very much doubt a split off party would attract anything like 120 MPs. There is obviously an intransigent hardcore of 40-50 MPs who would rather be in opposition than in government under Corbyn but most of the rest who signed the motion are followers of whichever way the wind blows who got panicked into following the chicken coup.
Government under Corbyn.
Literally all of my lols.
Your predictive powers and political acumen to date havent exactly been full fat Cassandra so maybe hold the hubris. I was referring hypothetically anyway - the intransigent problem children of the Blair era don't just have a problem with electability issues or presentation, they genuinely don't want any kind of the most moderate left wing platform to be enacted even if it did get them elected.
I don't know. But reselections in the wake of a Corbyn victory will drive a lot of MPs out of Labour. The Co-operative party currently has 25 MPs who sit on the Labour benches.
I'm not sure how this is relevant? Essentially Labour PPCs have the option, if they are Coop Party members, to seek Coop endorsement as well. I was urged to do so - the attraction is a mixture of affection for the cooperative business model and the prospect of money for the campaign from the Coop Party. It doesn't indicate anything in particular about the political stance of the MP. (I didn't do it because I didn't feel I could claim an honest special attachment to the coop system - in my case it would have been mostly for the money.)
I could almost admire Corbyn. He's taken his once-in-a-lifetime chance. If he can permanently wrest control of Labour away from its moderates, then all he has to do is wait.
One day, a Labour party will be elected. The Conservatives can't rule forever. Then the bright Socialist dawn can begin.
It's not often you see a politician truly playing a long game.
It rained today just when I forgot my coat. Bloody Brexit! I saw a dead slug on the path - that never happened before June 23rd.
Being so miserable is the only thing that keeps me happy now. It's all I have left after the Old Gits have ruined my future. They had all the fun, what with their council houses and polio and TB and their patched-up hand-me-down clothes. They've gone and made our foreign holidays more expensive too, and as for our gap years ... mater and pater have had to sack the gardener to pay for it. It's all too much, life isn't worth living now.
I'm treading as softly as I can because I'm treading on their dreams, but it's hard to feel sympathy for spoilt children.
Most Remainers are in acceptance phase now, but the outliers are very funny.
My old gardener Stunt used to take the piss out of my oddly 1950s lifestyle. I'd every modern convenience with knobs on - but preferred chopping wood, growing my own veg, oil lamps, handwashing, not watching TV et al.
I paid him more to do my garden than I spent on utilities.
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
Sorry but if all these people just want a protest movement and don't want to win power... what were they doing in 2010 when they voted for the Milibands?
Splitting your party is probably the closest thing to a guarantee of electoral defeat in a FPTP system.
As is having Jeremy Corbyn as your leader.
Labour is utterly buggered. Its coalition has been irrevocably broken. The question is what's the best and quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative to the Tories from here?
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
I agree. I've never heard of the idea (about any party, in particular Labour) that the party is primarily a parliamentary party. Commitment to parliamentary democracy is one thing, the idea that the party is primarily a vehicle for the modest number of people who currently enjoy the Labour label is another, and a complete novelty. I've never met an MP who didn't concede that they were elected primarily because of their party affiliation, and it certainly doesn't confer ownership.
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
Sorry but if all these people just want a protest movement and don't want to win power... what were they doing in 2010 when they voted for the Milibands?
Splitting your party is probably the closest thing to a guarantee of electoral defeat in a FPTP system.
As is having Jeremy Corbyn as your leader.
Labour is utterly buggered. Its coalition has been irrevocably broken. The question is what's the best and quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative to the Tories from here?
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
They will be able to match the Tory party in donors and donations.
Once the union link and influence goes a lot of very wealthy people will be amenable to making donations.
Not really what the country needs, another party completely in thrall to the super-wealthy, though, is it? They have the Tories serving their needs very well.
The country needs a credible alternative to the Tories. As the state does not fund political parties, donations are the only option. Labour's reliance on union cash has significantly diminished its creative thinking and common sense, as current events demonstrate.
Perhaps a mixture of union/billionaire funding is an okay thing if it creates some creative tension. Probably better than relying on one or the other.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
They will be able to match the Tory party in donors and donations.
Once the union link and influence goes a lot of very wealthy people will be amenable to making donations.
Not really what the country needs, another party completely in thrall to the super-wealthy, though, is it? They have the Tories serving their needs very well.
The country needs a credible alternative to the Tories. As the state does not fund political parties, donations are the only option. Labour's reliance on union cash has significantly diminished its creative thinking and common sense, as current events demonstrate.
The party has over 500,000 members now, which adds up to a lot of subs. Surely a mass of smaller donations with grassroots engagement is a much healthier counterweight to the big business funded Tories than having yet another major part of the public sphere be a plaything of the hyper-rich? Bear in mind anyone can join, you don't have to be a mythical 1970s Trot entryist bogeyman, and by and large, we aren't.
Again, not sure that's true. This is not a big policy fallout, it's much more about Corbyn's inability to lead and to communicate with non-believers.
Is that really a good enough reason to split the party?
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
The problem is, would the 172 all split from Labour? How serious are they? They need at least 120 splitters to make it happen as they would then be the second largest party. They could even caucus with the SNP if they are in favour of Scottish independence. Giving them an additional 50 on their side.
I don't know. But reselections in the wake of a Corbyn victory will drive a lot of MPs out of Labour. The Co-operative party currently has 25 MPs who sit on the Labour benches.
I bet a decent sized part of the 172 wouldn't want to form a split even if they lost the upcoming leadership election, they would prefer to have 1 labour party. But, if the split does actually happen and takes a number of important MPs with it, then there is surely less interest for the wavering types to remain with Continuity Labour. Probably lots of those 172 don't want a split, but if a split does happen, there is no status quo, keep your head down, option for them anymore.
I don't think many people want a split outside the hard left and some on the right. But it's hard to see how one can be avoided.
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
Sorry but if all these people just want a protest movement and don't want to win power... what were they doing in 2010 when they voted for the Milibands?
Splitting your party is probably the closest thing to a guarantee of electoral defeat in a FPTP system.
As is having Jeremy Corbyn as your leader.
Labour is utterly buggered. Its coalition has been irrevocably broken. The question is what's the best and quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative to the Tories from here?
Genuine question. If the Labour rules had managed to exclude the 3 quidders, what would likely be the real level of support for Jeremy Corbyn in the real membership.
If BOTH the £3 people and the affiliates had been excluded, he would have had 49.6% to 22% each for Burnham and Cooper and 5.5% for Kendall
This would have forced a second preference count. It's generally believed that Corbyn would have picked up the necessary 0.4% fairly easily - people don't always vote in a nbeat left-right pattern.
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
Sorry but if all these people just want a protest movement and don't want to win power... what were they doing in 2010 when they voted for the Milibands?
Splitting your party is probably the closest thing to a guarantee of electoral defeat in a FPTP system.
As is having Jeremy Corbyn as your leader.
Labour is utterly buggered. Its coalition has been irrevocably broken. The question is what's the best and quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative to the Tories from here?
Genuine question. If the Labour rules had managed to exclude the 3 quidders, what would likely be the real level of support for Jeremy Corbyn in the real membership.
If BOTH the £3 people and the affiliates had been excluded, he would have had 49.6% to 22% each for Burnham and Cooper and 5.5% for Kendall
This would have forced a second preference count. It's generally believed that Corbyn would have picked up the necessary 0.4% fairly easily - people don't always vote in a nbeat left-right pattern.
I'm talking about now, not in the leadership election.
I know you're a bit full of yourself - but when you've the status of Zerohedge - maybe I'll pay your posts the same attention.
The original source is from the German press. Zerohedge are a bit flakey . Unfortunately, while I can order beer in every major European language, that is as far as my linguistic skills go.
Incidentally, I see turnout at the referendum among young voters is estimated by Survation as being much higher than first estimated, at over 60%. This has implications for the way polls downweight certainty to vote among the young (though among the very elderly apparently it exceeded 90%, which sounds a bit implausible).
I could almost admire Corbyn. He's taken his once-in-a-lifetime chance. If he can permanently wrest control of Labour away from its moderates, then all he has to do is wait.
One day, a Labour party will be elected. The Conservatives can't rule forever. Then the bright Socialist dawn can begin.
It's not often you see a politician truly playing a long game.
The problem is that while the natural rules of democracy mean the Tories will lose power at some point, there is no law of physics that says Labour must be the beneficiary. Just as Lloyd George's pleas to be trusted with government in 1929 fell on deaf ears, even though a mere seven years earlier he had been Prime Minister.
Labour are really in trouble. There are three possibilities now:
1) Corbyn is able to stand for the leadership again, wins and the Parliamentary party collapses; 2) Corbyn is banned from standing and the 50%+ of members who support him walk out and join the SWP and the Greens, causing an implosion of the Labour movement; 3) Corbyn stands and is beaten fair and square, Labour then begin the massive process of restoring their credibility in the eyes of voters, which could take 10 years but should ultimately see them return to power.
The only problem is that (3) is less likely than a further Federer triumph at Wimbledon. That means that Labour appears doomed unless Corbyn is removed from office some other way - illness, death or resignation (which last is even more unlikely than (3) above).
Bad news for the country and bad news for us all - except of course Theresa May, and anything that pleases one politician is not a good thing.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Which is why they'll need to talk to the big donors about seed funding. After that they'll need to build up members and fast. Start engaging the new members and see if the likes of our own @SouthamObserver, @Jobabob, @Roger and @tyson are more than just all talk. Solicit donations of up to £1000 per year from as many middle class types as possible.
Really? Regularly? To replace the Unite funding et al of ...
At least 14 unions affiliate to Labour but a huge bulk of the funding comes from five unions that in 2014 affiliated 2,032,297 political levy paying members who provide the party with £5.55m in annual income.
They'll be a new party with no real outgoings, no local party offices and no debt. They'll need the seed funding to get a HQ building and after that they'll have to build up slowly and begin to get councillors and members to defect to the new party.
Its not easy, but the alternative of knuckling under the hard left for another 10 years seems bleak enough to try.
And after the first blush of summer wears off?
I just don't see it as very likely. A look at past Labour donation registrations could be a sign of the future post Cash For Honours. It'd take quite a culture change for most Labour members to cough up more.
And if more middle class urban Labour voters do pay up - what link does that have with blue collar or underclass voters they claim to be for?
Yeah sorry Max, I know they're junk. But I don't speak or read German.
Welt know their stuff, but as a rule I give zerohedge a very wide berth indeed. The £150bn could be conservative all things considered. As I said before, no one has an approximation of an approximation yet. We just don't knkw how deep the liabilities are for the derivatives.
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Which is why they'll need to talk to the big donors about seed funding. After that they'll need to build up members and fast. Start engaging the new members and see if the likes of our own @SouthamObserver, @Jobabob, @Roger and @tyson are more than just all talk. Solicit donations of up to £1000 per year from as many middle class types as possible.
I think a new party with a strong base of MPs would attract a lot of donors. In principle, I'd be prepared to make a decent (£1,000) annual donation and I imagine people a lot better off than me would pay in very sizeable amounts. I am sure that will happen if JC is re-elected.
But what principles would it unite behind? If certain wealthy people want to fund a genuine centre-left social democratic party then great. But there will also be those, particularly in the current climate, who basically want a pro-EU alternative to the Tories or a ruthlessly centrist Blair party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the young woman who was on the Sunday Politics who did the section on the Remain campaign's failure, the one who Theresa May has just hired?
Just watched that segment. In the talking heads bit after, Isabel Oakeshott said that at the start of the Referendum campaign, the Remain bods tried to come up with 5 positive things about the EU, and they couldn't do it.
I'm slightly perplexed as to why the PB expert panel are still making firm 'common-sense' predictions when almost all received wisdom has been proven wrong time and time again over the last few years. Neoliberalism has been crumbling away behind the facade for years and it is now starting to show in the most unexpected ways.
The party would not be splitting if Corbyn accepted he cannot lead it when 80% of MPs do not have confidence in his leadership. The split will occur because most party members do not believe that Labour is primarily a parliamentary party. That's not a policy difference, but it is a philosophical chasm.
Sorry but if all these people just want a protest movement and don't want to win power... what were they doing in 2010 when they voted for the Milibands?
Splitting your party is probably the closest thing to a guarantee of electoral defeat in a FPTP system.
As is having Jeremy Corbyn as your leader.
Labour is utterly buggered. Its coalition has been irrevocably broken. The question is what's the best and quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative to the Tories from here?
Sorry didn't quite finish my thought there... splitting your party almost guarantees defeat. But to split your party and then essentially stand on the same platform!? That's just a recipe for halving your vote!
If you think Corbyn is electoral doom- then by far the quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative is to wait for him to leave. He will lose the next general election whenever it is- and then the members will vote him out. He's 67 anyway. He's probably not enjoying this job all that much.
Also- I actually think he has quite a personal following in the membership based on his humbleness and reputation that would not transfer across to another candidate with similar views.
If you split the party... the mechanism seems to be lots of the MPs will leave a la SDP and set up their own party. They will have no brand, no loyal activists, and likely not enough money to function. In a FPTP system they will get hammered and guarantee a Tory win. Then when Corbyn's reign ends in disaster- how do you get back into the Labour party which you left? Or do you keep trying to build up your new party? You split your resources in two and doom the left to a meaningless divide- since there isn't really much of a policy difference!
I know you're a bit full of yourself - but when you've the status of Zerohedge - maybe I'll pay your posts the same attention.
The original source is from the German press. Zerohedge are a bit flakey . Unfortunately, while I can order beer in every major European language, that is as far as my linguistic skills go.
I don't claim Zerohedge are oracles, they're collectively more informed than a single PB person who's recently become a market analyst.
Incidentally, I see turnout at the referendum among young voters is estimated by Survation as being much higher than first estimated, at over 60%. This has implications for the way polls downweight certainty to vote among the young (though among the very elderly apparently it exceeded 90%, which sounds a bit implausible).
90% for elderly is more plausible than 64% for 18-24 year olds IMO.
I could almost admire Corbyn. He's taken his once-in-a-lifetime chance. If he can permanently wrest control of Labour away from its moderates, then all he has to do is wait.
One day, a Labour party will be elected. The Conservatives can't rule forever. Then the bright Socialist dawn can begin.
It's not often you see a politician truly playing a long game.
The problem is that while the natural rules of democracy mean the Tories will lose power at some point, there is no law of physics that says Labour must be the beneficiary. Just as Lloyd George's pleas to be trusted with government in 1929 fell on deaf ears, even though a mere seven years earlier he had been Prime Minister.
Labour are really in trouble. There are three possibilities now:
1) Corbyn is able to stand for the leadership again, wins and the Parliamentary party collapses; 2) Corbyn is banned from standing and the 50%+ of members who support him walk out and join the SWP and the Greens, causing an implosion of the Labour movement; 3) Corbyn stands and is beaten fair and square, Labour then begin the massive process of restoring their credibility in the eyes of voters, which could take 10 years but should ultimately see them return to power.
The only problem is that (3) is less likely than a further Federer triumph at Wimbledon. That means that Labour appears doomed unless Corbyn is removed from office some other way - illness, death or resignation (which last is even more unlikely than (3) above).
Bad news for the country and bad news for us all - except of course Theresa May, and anything that pleases one politician is not a good thing.
Very much agree with your last paragraph. Effective good governance needs effective good opposition. An imploding Labour party with no obvious successor really isn't good for this country.
Gerhard Schroeder and Alain Minc (Sarkozy confidant) are calling for the bilateral Elysee treaty between France and Germany to be deepened to include a Franco-German minister in each government, a common position on European issues, the ability for each state to represent the other in European meetings and investment in language education so that they don't default to using English with each other.
I'm slightly perplexed as to why the PB expert panel are still making firm 'common-sense' predictions when almost all received wisdom has been proven wrong time and time again over the last few years. Neoliberalism has been crumbling away behind the facade for years and it is now starting to show in the most unexpected ways.
Preferring being in charge is less scary than seeing the cliff edge eroded away as you watch?
The omens have been there for many months, after years of unhappiness. That the West is collectively experiencing the end of the old order reminds me of the Berlin Wall.
Denial was a key factor then too. Those who felt left out have discovered it isn't just them, they're the 52%. It's enormously energising and threatening for those fond of the status quo.
I know you're a bit full of yourself - but when you've the status of Zerohedge - maybe I'll pay your posts the same attention.
The original source is from the German press. Zerohedge are a bit flakey . Unfortunately, while I can order beer in every major European language, that is as far as my linguistic skills go.
I don't claim Zerohedge are oracles, they're collectively more informed than a single PB person who's recently become a market analyst.
You, mean apart from the founder of Zero Hedge being banned from working in the securities industry, and the whole site having been sued for taking money from hedge funds to spread false stories about companies?
1. Lose to Corbyn. 2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles. 3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour. 4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over. 5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence. 6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status. 7. If the unions say no then make it happen.
I love the fact that you name those Labour donors as if we'd all know who they are! I know Mills but not the others. however we hit upon the core problem. How is such a party to be funded? To do without big donors and trade unions you'd probably need the better part of a million members. Where will they come from?
Which is why they'll need to talk to the big donors about seed funding. After that they'll need to build up members and fast. Start engaging the new members and see if the likes of our own @SouthamObserver, @Jobabob, @Roger and @tyson are more than just all talk. Solicit donations of up to £1000 per year from as many middle class types as possible.
Really? Regularly? To replace the Unite funding et al of ...
At least 14 unions affiliate to Labour but a huge bulk of the funding comes from five unions that in 2014 affiliated 2,032,297 political levy paying members who provide the party with £5.55m in annual income.
They'll be a new party with no real outgoings, no local party offices and no debt. They'll need the seed funding to get a HQ building and after that they'll have to build up slowly and begin to get councillors and members to defect to the new party.
Its not easy, but the alternative of knuckling under the hard left for another 10 years seems bleak enough to try.
And after the first blush of summer wears off?
I just don't see it as very likely. A look at past Labour donation registrations could be a sign of the future post Cash For Honours. It'd take quite a culture change for most Labour members to cough up more.
And if more middle class urban Labour voters do pay up - what link does that have with blue collar or underclass voters they claim to be for?
It's a schism.
Completely top down and completely doomed. Zero roots, zero infrastructure, zero brand. Just 170 odd europhiles unexpectedly out of a job and looking for a sub.
BRITISH tennis ace Andy Murray now 2 sets to 0 up against Raonic. 6-4, 7-6
The Scot is playing well.
Ahem I think you mean the Brit.. ...for now..........
Do you mean he's playing well for now, or he's British for now until Nicola gets her way?
He is doing much, much better than I had expected. I thought Raonic's immense serve would make this a very close match, but Murray can win points on a serve of 147mph into the body? That's class!
And just as I write this, he goes break point down.
I know you're a bit full of yourself - but when you've the status of Zerohedge - maybe I'll pay your posts the same attention.
The original source is from the German press. Zerohedge are a bit flakey . Unfortunately, while I can order beer in every major European language, that is as far as my linguistic skills go.
I don't claim Zerohedge are oracles, they're collectively more informed than a single PB person who's recently become a market analyst.
You, mean apart from the founder of Zero Hedge being banned from working in the securities industry, and the whole site having been sued for taking money from hedge funds to spread false stories about companies?
Presumably they're very sympathetic to the Brexit cause?
Comments
Mr. Stjohn, something Dawn?
For all those 2.8m voters who got off the sofa - it wasn't. Nor for those who feel their local culture has been undermined or their life chances ruined by FoM.
It's a daily boring meme on here that Brexit was all about immigration, as if that an inherently EVIL thing = these views and people don't deserve a vote. Urgh!!
Obviously that's either snobbery or totally missing the point. I voted for Leave primarily on sovereignty, and secondly on the cultural symptom impact of immigration.
Social cohesion is based on integration, not cultural vandalism/feeling a foreigner on your own street.
Governments can throw money at local services - it can't make your hometown feel like home again.
But, on looking it up, I'm actually in "Wantage" (the town of Wantage is, by the way, several times further away from me than Abingdon and has very little to do with me here - or people in Didcot, which is in another direction yet also in Wantage). I can come off the A34 near Didcot, in the constituency of Wantage, drive north under a mile and be in the constituency of Henley (the town of Henley is halfway to Reading from here, in another direction altogether) and into Oxford West and Abingdon (whilst being a lot further away from either Oxford (West or East) and Abingdon).
Many people have no clue what constituency they're in.
Which, given some constituencies ("Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey", "East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow", "Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb", probably) is understandable.
Remainers: "voting Brexit will have a negative effect on the economy, and the biggest losers will not be the well-off but those is the poorest communities - sadly those who are at the forefront of the "Leave" surge, in part duped by the dishonesty of the Leave campaign.
Leavers: "you don't care about these people, you're just trying to scare them into voting remain"
Post referendum:
Remainers: "as we predicted Brexit is having a negative effect on the economy, and the biggest losers are not the well-off but those in the poorest communities - and sadly many of those who have voted for what they are now experiencing".
Leavers: "crocodile tears, you never cared about these people, you were just scaremongering..."
REMAIN 48%
Suck it up!
Test Cricket is quite simply the best sport out there...
If Corbyn is even half as bad as his detractors make out- then they should simply have waited a little longer for it to become obvious. Supported him in public and given every impression they were trying to make the best of it.
Instead they sniped and plotted from day one, waiting with increasing impatience as by-elections, mayoral elections and local elections didn't turn into the disasters they predicted. Now- if they say Labour has been unsuccessful- the members will say it's because you plotters undermined him.
Remember in 2010 Diane Abbott came dead last! Party members preferred David over Ed Miliband.
The electorate for the leadership are not irreversibly Corbyn... if the centre and right of the party had just gone away and done some thinking, and been ready when (as they see it) the inevitable Corbyn disaster occurred... they would be in a much stronger position.
Now the plotters risk extending Corbyn's mandate!
How did it fail, stupid?
'1. Lose to Corbyn.
2. Start talking to Garrard, Taylor, Mills, Nasir and Rosenfeld. Sound them out about seed funding for a new party based on centre left principles.
3. Come up with a name for the party, including the word Labour.
4. Sound out how many MPs across all parties they can bring over.
5. Decide whether they are in favour or against Scottish independence.
6. Do a count, how many MPs will come over, if more than 120 are willing to come over, threaten the unions with the loss of official opposition status.
7. If the unions say no then make it happen. '
8. 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government?'
At least 14 unions affiliate to Labour but a huge bulk of the funding comes from five unions that in 2014 affiliated 2,032,297 political levy paying members who provide the party with £5.55m in annual income.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/04/labour-predicts-trade-union-bill-cut-funding-8m
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/andrea-leadsom-tax-returns-reveals-85000-income-in-2015
Too keen on family?
Thinks adopted kids should have a mum and a dad?
Keen on generic Christian values?
Seriously. Get a grip.
Being so miserable is the only thing that keeps me happy now. It's all I have left after the Old Gits have ruined my future. They had all the fun, what with their council houses and polio and TB and their patched-up hand-me-down clothes. They've gone and made our foreign holidays more expensive too, and as for our gap years ... mater and pater have had to sack the gardener to pay for it. It's all too much, life isn't worth living now.
I'm treading as softly as I can because I'm treading on their dreams, but it's hard to feel sympathy for spoilt children.
Most Remainers are in acceptance phase now, but the outliers are very funny.
Its not easy, but the alternative of knuckling under the hard left for another 10 years seems bleak enough to try.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/united-kingdom-post-race-analysis-2016.html
As I mention, I'll try and get a mid-season review knocked up before Hungary (a fortnight away). It may contain a special extra secret thingummyjig. If I remember. Which, given I forgot the name of the second most important character in a book about a month after releasing it, remains open to doubt.
Literally all of my lols.
I can't help noticing the gulf between those with a shed load of cash and political will, compared to those who are members and don't donate much at all beyond membership. This applies to all Parties.
GE or specific campaigns are another matter. It's unsexy bread and rations that require funding.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-10/deutsche-banks-chief-economist-calls-€150-billion-bailout-european-banks
Splitting your party is probably the closest thing to a guarantee of electoral defeat in a FPTP system.
https://party.coop/lists/members-of-parliament/
Not many Corbynistas among them.
http://www.welt.de/finanzen/article156924408/Deutsche-Bank-Chefoekonom-fordert-150-Milliarden.html
One day, a Labour party will be elected. The Conservatives can't rule forever. Then the bright Socialist dawn can begin.
It's not often you see a politician truly playing a long game.
I paid him more to do my garden than I spent on utilities.
There's something very satisfying about it.
Labour is utterly buggered. Its coalition has been irrevocably broken. The question is what's the best and quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative to the Tories from here?
Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34221155
This would have forced a second preference count. It's generally believed that Corbyn would have picked up the necessary 0.4% fairly easily - people don't always vote in a nbeat left-right pattern.
Labour are really in trouble. There are three possibilities now:
1) Corbyn is able to stand for the leadership again, wins and the Parliamentary party collapses;
2) Corbyn is banned from standing and the 50%+ of members who support him walk out and join the SWP and the Greens, causing an implosion of the Labour movement;
3) Corbyn stands and is beaten fair and square, Labour then begin the massive process of restoring their credibility in the eyes of voters, which could take 10 years but should ultimately see them return to power.
The only problem is that (3) is less likely than a further Federer triumph at Wimbledon. That means that Labour appears doomed unless Corbyn is removed from office some other way - illness, death or resignation (which last is even more unlikely than (3) above).
Bad news for the country and bad news for us all - except of course Theresa May, and anything that pleases one politician is not a good thing.
I just don't see it as very likely. A look at past Labour donation registrations could be a sign of the future post Cash For Honours. It'd take quite a culture change for most Labour members to cough up more.
And if more middle class urban Labour voters do pay up - what link does that have with blue collar or underclass voters they claim to be for?
It's a schism.
If Corbyn does need MPs' backing to be on the ballot and doesn't get it, might that not resolve the problem for Labour?
28m40s into the programme below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07j94gs/sunday-politics-south-east-10072016
(They're going to do a segment on Vote Leave on the Daily Politics programme)
But to split your party and then essentially stand on the same platform!? That's just a recipe for halving your vote!
If you think Corbyn is electoral doom- then by far the quickest way to build a credible, centre left alternative is to wait for him to leave. He will lose the next general election whenever it is- and then the members will vote him out. He's 67 anyway. He's probably not enjoying this job all that much.
Also- I actually think he has quite a personal following in the membership based on his humbleness and reputation that would not transfer across to another candidate with similar views.
If you split the party... the mechanism seems to be lots of the MPs will leave a la SDP and set up their own party. They will have no brand, no loyal activists, and likely not enough money to function. In a FPTP system they will get hammered and guarantee a Tory win. Then when Corbyn's reign ends in disaster- how do you get back into the Labour party which you left? Or do you keep trying to build up your new party? You split your resources in two and doom the left to a meaningless divide- since there isn't really much of a policy difference!
...for now..........
The omens have been there for many months, after years of unhappiness. That the West is collectively experiencing the end of the old order reminds me of the Berlin Wall.
Denial was a key factor then too. Those who felt left out have discovered it isn't just them, they're the 52%. It's enormously energising and threatening for those fond of the status quo.
He is doing much, much better than I had expected. I thought Raonic's immense serve would make this a very close match, but Murray can win points on a serve of 147mph into the body? That's class!
And just as I write this, he goes break point down.