I can't help observing that the intersection of the set of nutjobs who were convinced that Cameron wouldn't deliver on his promise of a referendum, and the set of nutjobs who think Theresa May won't deliver on her promise that Brexit means Brexit, is close to 100%.
I think the last month showed who the nutjobs are, at least in terms of political awareness and judgement.
Well I thought Leave would win a referendum and said so years ago, and backed Leave, and I think Mr Nabavi is right on that one. So if I'm a nutjob, then I'm afraid some Leavers are nutjobs at least.
I was never convinced Leave would win, Mr Nabavi was absolutely convinced Remain would win and spoke often of his bets on the winning margin.
He now has the temerity to call people nutjobs.
France have indicated they didn't like the outcome of the Euro final so they are going to rerun it until they get a result they like.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
If Corbyn cannot get 50 odd people to support him in Parliament, then what credibility is left?
Corbyn genuinely doesn't care about Parliament.
I think he should be on the ballot and I will rejoin to give it one last shot but if he wins again I genuinely believe Labour is finished as a potential,future government. I say that because there will be an exodus of non-Corbynites and the Momentum crowd will gain control of the NEC and stitch up the party rules to ensure no-one but a hard leftie can win again, we'll get annual mandatory reselections etc et.
There will be a split because 170 MPs will have nothing to lose because they know they will be deselected before the next GE. It is a very different scenario to SDP1 when only about a dozen MPs defected. If Corbyn Labour ceases to be the official opposition for the next 4 years and are just a rump of 40 MPs (4th largest grouping behind the SNP} they will wither from public view. They have no god-given right to exist and could easily disappear from the political scene in England/Wales as fast as they did in Scotland.
I think quite a few MPs will blink and fall into line. But a lot more won't. If there are enough to become the biggrst opposition party then that will be a very good place to start from; though a split will inevitably lead to an early GE and a huge Tory majority. Sadly, though, if Corbyn is re-elected as we all expect there's no alternative.
Labour is in for a pasting with Corbyn as leader anyway so that ceases to be a reason not to split.
Be interested to know how many PB posters who voted Labour in 2015 would vote for a Corbyn led party in 2020. There only appear to be about 3 or 4 loyalists left.
BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two
Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.
It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority
We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.
The sooner the BBC is canned the better.
A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement
People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.
Not if the choice is exit from the single market as the price of that control and the economic damage that will do, it is likely to be either or in some form, with some token concessions on free movement and in that scenario the single market wins
We really need a proper Treasury analysis of the various options, not that absolute sack of shite that was trotted out during EUref.
We all (me included) tend to talk about the Single Market without necessarily understanding the consequences, impacts and costs of being a member or not.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Dream on.
Labour members and the unions would just not accept such an undemocratic move
What do you think they would do if the NEC did rule to require Corbyn to garner nominations, and the courts upheld that decision?
Were it not for the expectation that the courts would rule the other way - i.e. in Corbyn's favour - it would make a great deal of sense to keep him off the ballot precisely in order to rid the party of the infiltrators and nutcases.
They will write in for Corbyn on the ballot paper. It will be clear he has won a landslide....
The rules definitely don't allow for write in candidates. If Corbyn is not on the ballot paper he can't win even if the overwhelming majority of voters write in for him.
Will any of the Labour moderates/172 come out and state that they should think Jezza should be on the ballot. The positions are NOT mutually exclusive, and any that does so would go up in my estimation.
He can get on the ballot if he gets the required nominations. He should count himself bloody lucky - if he were bound by Tory Party rules he wouldn't even be able to run! What are Liberal rules by the way?
A Conservative MP only needs the support of two MPs to enter a party leadership contest.
Once the leader of the Conservative party has lost a confidence vote they are prohibited from standing in the following election no matter how many nominations they get. So Jobabob is correct. If Corbyn was bound by Tory party rules he would be able to run.
You mean would not be able to run.
Thanks sir - but in fairness to David he conceded the point up thread.
I would say that's pretty clear cut. It states "challengers" need nominees. Feck all about the sitting tenant requiring them.
However....
If they declare a leadership contest when a challenger has achieved the required number of nominations as per this rule then if the present leader wishes to continue in post does the leader by default then also become a "challenger" ( for the position) and if that's so then they would I suppose need the required nominations.
Or not?
A sitting Leader isn't a challenger.
I agree I do but even so If a contest is declared then they would become " a challenger".
Unless it states clearly such a contest can continue with a leader who has not resigned which is a political coup in all but name.
As the Labour party is treated in law as a private members club I think the courts will take the view that it is up to the NEC to determine how its rules are interpreted. Whilst they will hear the case (if it is brought) I think the courts will only overturn the NEC's decision if it is discriminatory (e.g. Corbyn being excluded due to age) or illegal. That would be in line with precedents.
How does that square with Lee, or Baker [and others]?
Can you cite a 'precedent', where the proper construction of rules is left to a bunch of amateurs? Where the courts are ousted? Even without any purported clause to that effect?
How does 'discriminatory' come into it, anyhow? The courts are interested in other things too:-
i) the proper construction of the rules ii) the rules of natural justice are implied as a matter of course [unless there is very clear language to the contrary, which the courts may still choose to override] iii) good faith [even if both of the above are complied with, there can be no hint of ulterior or improper motive]
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
Other than ensuring Brexit happens and hopefully managing things competently, plenty of people might be happy with little change. The people voted to leave the eu, not a revolution in all things. Perhaps one is wanted and it will happen...but it is not s certainty it is wanted.
Labour may be seen as a rabble but if Tories argue like Ferrets then they will be ok. I just can't see a split party. Everyone knows that the election is lost if a split.
The NEC needs to apply the necessary medicine tomorrow. It will be easier to overcome the fallout from that than Corbyn automatically making the ballot in the face of an precedented PLP rebellion.
Dream on.
Labour members and the unions would just not accept such an undemocratic move
What do you think they would do if the NEC did rule to require Corbyn to garner nominations, and the courts upheld that decision?
Were it not for the expectation that the courts would rule the other way - i.e. in Corbyn's favour - it would make a great deal of sense to keep him off the ballot precisely in order to rid the party of the infiltrators and nutcases.
They will write in for Corbyn on the ballot paper. It will be clear he has won a landslide....
The rules definitely don't allow for write in candidates. If Corbyn is not on the ballot paper he can't win even if the overwhelming majority of voters write in for him.
They could spoil their papers in some sort of mass campaign - but risky, since such things are difficult to organise once you get beyond the super-motivated. Having a good but not leading tally of spoiled ballot papers could be used as 'proof' he would not have won.
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
Oh yes, they need to worry about ruling for another 9 to 14 years at this rate.
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
Just when it looked like we might be entering a period of calm and stability, along come the Labour Party. Their commitment to giving us something to LOL about is much appreciated.
Young Corbynite on Twitter asking what Labour need to do to win Scotland back from the SNP. Will you tell him, or shall I?
This Labour spat is kind of calm. As in it will surprise no-one outside of the Left. The Left will fight one another then split. It's why the UK has EIGHT Communist parties according to Wiki. That's JUST Communist parties. It doesn't include any Socialist Worker parties.
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities"
Are these communities particularly out of reach? Sounds like a mistake made by property developers, or the local authority not ensuring infrastructure requirements are in place before occupation.
Yes, they are out of reach under Corbyn. He never leaves his comfort zone. If you don't agree with him he has no interest in you.
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The bottom line here is that they concluded they wouldn't have won anyway with any of Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. And were probably right.
BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two
Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.
It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority
We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.
The sooner the BBC is canned the better.
A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement
People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.
Not if the choice is exit from the single market as the price of that control and the economic damage that will do, it is likely to be either or in some form, with some token concessions on free movement and in that scenario the single market wins
We really need a proper Treasury analysis of the various options, not that absolute sack of shite that was trotted out during EUref.
We all (me included) tend to talk about the Single Market without necessarily understanding the consequences, impacts and costs of being a member or not.
The figures I have seen show that if we are in the Single Market we would only see a small drop in growth if we leave the EU, if we leave the Single Market too that drop becomes significantly larger
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
Oh yes, they need to worry about ruling for another 9 to 14 years at this rate.
The horror.
LOL! That's the kind of hubris we saw around Gordon Brown in the Summer of 2007. We all know how quickly that went sour.
Theresa May has disaster written all over her. Gordon Brown in heels.
I was never convinced Leave would win, Mr Nabavi was absolutely convinced Remain would win and spoke often of his bets on the winning margin.
He now has the temerity to call people nutjobs.
Odd, then, that I made a profit on the referendum.
You seem a bit confused, not for the first time. I wasn't 'absolutely convinced' that Remain would win. I agreed with you (unusually!) that Remain was more likely to win.
In any case, being wrong in a prediction like the result of a referendum or election is nothing to be ashamed of. It's not like believing ludicrously silly things, such as that Cameron wouldn't deliver on the referendum, or that May won't take us out of the EU.
BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two
Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.
It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority
We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.
The sooner the BBC is canned the better.
A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement
People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.
No, the BBC question asked them if they wanted to cut immigration and even then the single market had a majority. The City will force us to stay in the single market in the end and we will, the economy demands it, Hartlepool and Basildon can go hang as far as they are concerned!
I think most Britons and Leavers will be satisfied with a fudge on free movement of Labour as long as it has some control on low skilled immigration like an insurance fee for using the NHS, this will keep the city happy as most are highly skilled. I believe non E.U migrants have to pay some sort of surcharge? But I'm not sure.
BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two
Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.
It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority
We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.
The sooner the BBC is canned the better.
A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement
People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.
Not if the choice is exit from the single market as the price of that control and the economic damage that will do, it is likely to be either or in some form, with some token concessions on free movement and in that scenario the single market wins
We really need a proper Treasury analysis of the various options, not that absolute sack of shite that was trotted out during EUref.
We all (me included) tend to talk about the Single Market without necessarily understanding the consequences, impacts and costs of being a member or not.
The figures I have seen show that if we are in the Single Market we would only see a small drop in growth if we leave the EU, if we leave the Single Market too that drop becomes significantly larger
The IFS report did cover some of the models (e.g. NIESR) that dealt with WTO scenarios. Unfortunately, all those models (Including the EEA ones) were incomplete in one way or another. There also has to be some doubt as to whether they were slanted in any way.
I totally accept that EEA would have less short-term impact than WTO, that's a no-brainer.
'We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.'
I wonder if they ran a similar comment when Brown bulldozed his way into No10 ?
:: Daily Mirror
Theresa May was chosen by 199 Tory MPs, equalling 0.0004% of the electorate.
The Tories did. Can only be a matter of time before we get a quote from May herself on the subject.
That wasn't the question. Good attempted deflection though
On the contrary is the most delicious question. Is May on the record against unelected PMs?
Welllll ... I thought Brown should have held an election and I said so at the time. I didn't like the Major transfer either before that and thought the same then. As such I think May should also put herself forward to the electorate.
It's been pointed out to me in Browns case that that we vote for parties and not leaders. Personally I think you vote for both but hey ho. It's an old can of worms still occasionally wriggling.
I think he should be on the ballot and I will rejoin to give it one last shot but if he wins again I genuinely believe Labour is finished as a potential,future government. I say that because there will be an exodus of non-Corbynites and the Momentum crowd will gain control of the NEC and stitch up the party rules to ensure no-one but a hard leftie can win again, we'll get annual mandatory reselections etc et.
There will be a split because 170 MPs will have nothing to lose because they know they will be deselected before the next GE. It is a very different scenario to SDP1 when only about a dozen MPs defected. If Corbyn Labour ceases to be the official opposition for the next 4 years and are just a rump of 40 MPs (4th largest grouping behind the SNP} they will wither from public view. They have no god-given right to exist and could easily disappear from the political scene in England/Wales as fast as they did in Scotland.
That seems a bizarre prognosis.
Corbynites will stand as The Labour Party. The Splitters will stand as... whatever. The Labour Party has an inbuilt vote. Sure, it might not be enough to give them 200 seats (in fact it almost certainly won't be).
But it will be enough to reduce the Splitters to 20 seats tops.
FPTP is brutal. There is no reason why anyone would vote for Chuka Umunna or Angela Eagle without the "The Labour Party" tag on the voting slip.
"In a perverse way, the relentless barrage was a compliment, a sign that Leadsom was seen as a real threat. That attitude was best summed up in a contemptible text to Tory MPs from Nick Boles: "What if Theresa stumbles? Are we really confident that the membership won't vote for a fresh face who shares their attitudes about much of modern life?” Whatever it took, Leadsom had to be kept away from the hustings where her smiley, down-to-earth style, experience of the real world and spirited fight for Brexit might endear her to the rank and file. Well, the skullduggers succeeded. Critics will say it simply proves Leadsom wasn’t up to being PM. Privately, I suspect she would agree."
'We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.'
Any backsliding and May is toast.
Over one hundred Tory brexit MP's will be watching closely.
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The bottom line here is that they concluded they wouldn't have won anyway with any of Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. And were probably right.
Things have changed somewhat since then. We have a new PM, the country has voted for Brexit, the government has abandoned its economic and fiscal policy, the future is very uncertain. What we have also learned is that Corbyn has no interest in leading the Parliamentary party. Members who vote for him again will be voting for that. There is no doubt hundreds of thousands will.
I was never convinced Leave would win, Mr Nabavi was absolutely convinced Remain would win and spoke often of his bets on the winning margin.
He now has the temerity to call people nutjobs.
Odd, then, that I made a profit on the referendum.
You seem a bit confused, not for the first time. I wasn't 'absolutely convinced' that Remain would win. I agreed with you (unusually!) that Remain was more likely to win.
In any case, being wrong in a prediction like the result of a referendum or election is nothing to be ashamed of. It's not like believing ludicrously silly things, such as that Cameron wouldn't deliver on the referendum, or that May won't take us out of the EU.
If she doesn't want people to doubt her views on Brexit maybe she shut up Green and Grieve?
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...
Hello and welcome. What do u mean?
Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg repeatedly mentioning that Theresa May didn't have a personal mandate. We are a Parliamentary Democracy - all you need to be Prime Minister is to be able to form a government and carry a vote of confidence in the HoC...
Yep. This mandate idea is nonsense. Brown, Major, Callaghan plus at least a Baker's dozen of others put the kibosh on the whole concept.
Not quite. The record of PM's being chosen by internal party mechanism while in post at the subsequent election is rather poor:
Brown lost, Callaghan lost, Douglas Home lost.
Major won the election, but lost seats in 92
I think that the last PM who assumed office this way who increased their majority in the subsequent election was MacMillan in 1959.
Of course none of them had to face an opposition as chaotic and hopeless as the current Labour party!
I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...
Hello
Yep. This mandate idea is nonsense. Brown, Major, Callaghan plus at least a Baker's dozen of others put the kibosh on the whole concept.
Not quite. The record of PM's being chosen by internal party mechanism while in post at the subsequent election is rather poor:
Brown lost, Callaghan lost, Douglas Home lost.
Major won the election, but lost seats in 92
I think that the last PM who assumed office this way who increased their majority in the subsequent election was MacMillan in 1959.
Of course none of them had to face an opposition as chaotic and hopeless as the current Labour party!
To be fair how often do government's increase their majority?
I thought 2015 was the first modern era time a government increased both its share of the vote and seats albeit even then that is only if you exclude the Lib Dems.
1983 was the previous example, with 1974 (Oct) and 1966, 1959 and 1955 being other post war re-elections with increased majorities. I count a government gaining seats 6 times out of 19 postwar elections. Not that rare-unless you choose a new PM in government.
Just when it looked like we might be entering a period of calm and stability, along come the Labour Party. Their commitment to giving us something to LOL about is much appreciated.
Young Corbynite on Twitter asking what Labour need to do to win Scotland back from the SNP. Will you tell him, or shall I?
This Labour spat is kind of calm. As in it will surprise no-one outside of the Left. The Left will fight one another then split. It's why the UK has EIGHT Communist parties according to Wiki. That's JUST Communist parties. It doesn't include any Socialist Worker parties.
You're right, I forget about the endless factionalism of the left. Even within the small number of Scottish political parties, there is Solidarity, RISE, TUSC and the actual Commies. Then they act surprised when they get routed by the Christian Party ('Proclaiming Christ's Lordship').
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
Agree entirely, 48% voted Remain so you only need to add 3% from the 52% who voted Leave to have a majority of 51% for EEA/single market. May has the potential to unite the country on that basis, if you want to end immigration then go and join UKIP!
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
Oh yes, they need to worry about ruling for another 9 to 14 years at this rate.
The horror.
LOL! That's the kind of hubris we saw around Gordon Brown in the Summer of 2007. We all know how quickly that went sour.
Theresa May has disaster written all over her. Gordon Brown in heels.
I was joking of course, but really Brown had spent a decade hollowing out his own party in readiness for power. He had filled it with supporters and undermined his own colleagues to the point at which it was a one man band. May has done none of these things. She is not leader for all time, but then she is no self centred egomaniac on Brown's scale.
BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two
Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.
It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority
We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.
The sooner the BBC is canned the better.
A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement
People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.
Not if the choice is exit from the single market as the price of that control and the economic damage that will do, it is likely to be either or in some form, with some token concessions on free movement and in that scenario the single market wins
We really need a proper Treasury analysis of the various options, not that absolute sack of shite that was trotted out during EUref.
We all (me included) tend to talk about the Single Market without necessarily understanding the consequences, impacts and costs of being a member or not.
The figures I have seen show that if we are in the Single Market we would only see a small drop in growth if we leave the EU, if we leave the Single Market too that drop becomes significantly larger
The IFS report did cover some of the models (e.g. NIESR) that dealt with WTO scenarios. Unfortunately, all those models (Including the EEA ones) were incomplete in one way or another. There also has to be some doubt as to whether they were slanted in any way.
I totally accept that EEA would have less short-term impact than WTO, that's a no-brainer.
I agree we need to see more research but as you suggest the trend is clear
BBC Comres poll has 66% backing entry to the single market as more important than cutting immigration given a straight choice between the two
Does that mean BBC paid Comres for a poll? Disgraceful if so, their function is to report the news in an unbiased manner not waste licence payer's money.
It is one of the crucial issues of the day, I don't think it is a waste to find out what the public think on it personally, though I may be in a minority
We know what the public think, there was a vote the other day.
The sooner the BBC is canned the better.
A vote on the EU not the EEA. Ipsos Mori 3 days ago did a poll that had it tighter but still a plurality for the single market and free movement
People don't know what free movement means ask them whether we should be able to control immigration from the E.U you will get a different answer, they probably think it means going on holiday to Europe without a visa etc.
No, the BBC question asked them if they wanted to cut immigration and even then the single market had a majority. The City will force us to stay in the single market in the end and we will, the economy demands it, Hartlepool and Basildon can go hang as far as they are concerned!
I think most Britons and Leavers will be satisfied with a fudge on free movement of Labour as long as it has some control on low skilled immigration like an insurance fee for using the NHS, this will keep the city happy as most are highly skilled. I believe non E.U migrants have to pay some sort of surcharge? But I'm not sure.
Some sort of arrangement like that would probably be the best solution, yes
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
Agree entirely, 48% voted Remain so you only need to add 3% from the 52% who voted Leave to have a majority of 51% for EEA/single market. May has the potential to unite the country on that basis, if you want to end immigration then go and join UKIP!
Quite. I'd welcome the departure of Labour's Red BNP wing to them too!
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The bottom line here is that they concluded they wouldn't have won anyway with any of Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. And were probably right.
Things have changed somewhat since then. We have a new PM, the country has voted for Brexit, the government has abandoned its economic and fiscal policy, the future is very uncertain. What we have also learned is that Corbyn has no interest in leading the Parliamentary party. Members who vote for him again will be voting for that. There is no doubt hundreds of thousands will.
Government approval has gone from -11 to -30, Cameron's ratings are worse than Corbyn's and Osborne's economic credibility have all gone in the space of the year, yet the Tories still lead by 7% in the opinion polls. It doesn't take a genius to work out what the problem is.
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
From your own experience you know its impossible to reason with ideologues, zealots and extremists. I can't even venture a guess as to the proportions, but there are clearly some who won't be happy until we've deported every Pole, Muslim and Roma. Others want net zero migration. We can't and shouldn't deal with them, they're idiots.
One thing May should do is change this countries systems (e.g. planning, health and welfare) so they're fit for purpose in a migratory world. We can't keep treating our own working poor as if they're some kind of fungible commodity.
Just when it looked like we might be entering a period of calm and stability, along come the Labour Party. Their commitment to giving us something to LOL about is much appreciated.
Young Corbynite on Twitter asking what Labour need to do to win Scotland back from the SNP. Will you tell him, or shall I?
This Labour spat is kind of calm. As in it will surprise no-one outside of the Left. The Left will fight one another then split. It's why the UK has EIGHT Communist parties according to Wiki. That's JUST Communist parties. It doesn't include any Socialist Worker parties.
You're right, I forget about the endless factionalism of the left. Even within the small number of Scottish political parties, there is Solidarity, RISE, TUSC and the actual Commies. Then they act surprised when they get routed by the Christian Party ('Proclaiming Christ's Lordship').
The 2007 Scottish Parliament election had Labour, Solidarity, Socialist Labour, Scottish Socialist, Communist and Socialist Equality plus a number of the others were on the Left of the spectrum (possibly including the Greens).
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The bottom line here is that they concluded they wouldn't have won anyway with any of Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. And were probably right.
Things have changed somewhat since then. We have a new PM, the country has voted for Brexit, the government has abandoned its economic and fiscal policy, the future is very uncertain. What we have also learned is that Corbyn has no interest in leading the Parliamentary party. Members who vote for him again will be voting for that. There is no doubt hundreds of thousands will.
Government approval has gone from -11 to -30, Cameron's ratings are worse than Corbyn's and Osborne's economic credibility have all gone in the space of the year, yet the Tories still lead by 7% in the opinion polls. It doesn't take a genius to work out what the problem is.
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The bottom line here is that they concluded they wouldn't have won anyway with any of Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. And were probably right.
Things have changed somewhat since then. We have a new PM, the country has voted for Brexit, the government has abandoned its economic and fiscal policy, the future is very uncertain. What we have also learned is that Corbyn has no interest in leading the Parliamentary party. Members who vote for him again will be voting for that. There is no doubt hundreds of thousands will.
Government approval has gone from -11 to -30, Cameron's ratings are worse than Corbyn's and Osborne's economic credibility have all gone in the space of the year, yet the Tories still lead by 7% in the opinion polls. It doesn't take a genius to work out what the problem is.
And where is the evidence that Eagle (or anyone else) would be better?
Of the list of reasons you gave the other day for why Eagle would be a better leader than Corbyn, the only one I agreed with was that she is better in the Commons (and even that has little impact on how people vote in elections--ask William Hague).
One thing May should do is change this countries systems (e.g. planning, health and welfare) so they're fit for purpose in a migratory world. We can't keep treating our own working poor as if they're some kind of fungible commodity.
'We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.'
Any backsliding and May is toast.
Over one hundred Tory brexit MP's will be watching closely.
It is impossible to reason with ideologues and extremists.
I've been wobbling all day on whether May will hold an immediate GE.
Every ounce of political logic indicates she should go for it, but will she?
She needs to give Labour time to replace their right wing with left wing nuts. Allow a year and Labour will be represented by Skinners, Corbyns and Cat Smiths in every constituency.
The result will be the same, Labour are smashed. But with the right wing of their party gutted, Labour have no path back.
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The bottom line here is that they concluded they wouldn't have won anyway with any of Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. And were probably right.
Things have changed somewhat since then. We have a new PM, the country has voted for Brexit, the government has abandoned its economic and fiscal policy, the future is very uncertain. What we have also learned is that Corbyn has no interest in leading the Parliamentary party. Members who vote for him again will be voting for that. There is no doubt hundreds of thousands will.
Government approval has gone from -11 to -30, Cameron's ratings are worse than Corbyn's and Osborne's economic credibility have all gone in the space of the year, yet the Tories still lead by 7% in the opinion polls. It doesn't take a genius to work out what the problem is.
Given that the Labour Party is stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers, it does seem odd that they were incapable of writing a three-sentence paragraph describing unambiguously the nomination requirements for a leadership challenge.
Leaving that aside, I think Rod and Michael Mansfield QC are right; it's very hard to construe the badly-drafted rules as meaning anything other than that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated in a contest where he is challenged.
I've been wobbling all day on whether May will hold an immediate GE.
Every ounce of political logic indicates she should go for it before the nutters drag her down, but will she?
Too unpopular amongst Tory MPs. 1 year into a new term is going to blow a hole in some people's futures - lifestyles, mortgages, rents, children's schooling etc have been changed to accommodate life as an MP; why risk it?
Given that the Labour Party is stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers, it does seem odd that they were incapable of writing a three-sentence paragraph describing unambiguously the nomination requirements for a leadership challenge.
Leaving that aside, I think Rod and Michael Mansfield QC are right; it's very hard to construe the badly-drafted rules as meaning anything other than that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated in a contest where he is challenged.
Isn't ambiguous wording how lawyers keep themselves employed?
Given that the Labour Party is stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers, it does seem odd that they were incapable of writing a three-sentence paragraph describing unambiguously the nomination requirements for a leadership challenge.
Leaving that aside, I think Rod and Michael Mansfield QC are right; it's very hard to construe the badly-drafted rules as meaning anything other than that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated in a contest where he is challenged.
That said for betting purposes I don't trust the NEC an inch.
I want the Labour party to carry on forever. Which other market could you lay Andy Burnham at 12-1 in ?
You can still lay Richie Porte at 25/1 on the Tour de France. Not quite as good but even better chance. Tour odds are interesting right now. Yates is still 33/1. But that makes him fourth favourite. Meintjes was 500/1 till yesterday and still 250/1 which is ridiculous while E/W can be had.
Given that the Labour Party is stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers, it does seem odd that they were incapable of writing a three-sentence paragraph describing unambiguously the nomination requirements for a leadership challenge.
Leaving that aside, I think Rod and Michael Mansfield QC are right; it's very hard to construe the badly-drafted rules as meaning anything other than that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated in a contest where he is challenged.
For a lawyer it is unambigious.
Just not unarguable. I.e. they can still earn a fee.
But the actual change makes it very clear. The leader does not need to re-nominate.
I've been wobbling all day on whether May will hold an immediate GE.
Every ounce of political logic indicates she should go for it, but will she?
She needs to give Labour time to replace their right wing with left wing nuts. Allow a year and Labour will be represented by Skinners, Corbyns and Cat Smiths in every constituency.
The result will be the same, Labour are smashed. But with the right wing of their party gutted, Labour have no path back.
That would allow too much time for the nutters on her right flank to rearm.
They won't be happy until the foreigners have all left.
Actually, sorry that's wrong - Even then they won't be happy.
As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
The Tories can be destroyed by UKIP if enough people vote for UKIP (as can Labour)
But that is true with any combination of parties. The SNP could be destroyed if enough people vote for the Scottish Greens. Doesn't mean it is going to happen though
Given that the Labour Party is stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers, it does seem odd that they were incapable of writing a three-sentence paragraph describing unambiguously the nomination requirements for a leadership challenge.
Leaving that aside, I think Rod and Michael Mansfield QC are right; it's very hard to construe the badly-drafted rules as meaning anything other than that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated in a contest where he is challenged.
The rules as read are insane so the aim of the game is now to find room for movement. As you suggest up top, there is some.
Nevertheless this will go to a vote of the NEC which Corbyn will probably win, thus ushering in the exodus of millions of moderate supporters and the likely death of the party. Good night!
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
From your own experience you know its impossible to reason with ideologues, zealots and extremists. I can't even venture a guess as to the proportions, but there are clearly some who won't be happy until we've deported every Pole, Muslim and Roma. Others want net zero migration. We can't and shouldn't deal with them, they're idiots.
One thing May should do is change this countries systems (e.g. planning, health and welfare) so they're fit for purpose in a migratory world. We can't keep treating our own working poor as if they're some kind of fungible commodity.
It is very dishonest to pretend the options are mass deportation, zero net migration and next to no restrictions in a migratory world. The majority of the public are somewhere in the middle. In fact, we have a clear benchmark set by the current Prime Minister: tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. Now we're out of the EU, May has no excuse not to deliver.
I want the Labour party to carry on forever. Which other market could you lay Andy Burnham at 12-1 in ?
You can still lay Richie Porte at 25/1 on the Tour de France. Not quite as good but even better chance. Tour odds are interesting right now. Yates is still 33/1. But that makes him fourth favourite. Meintjes was 500/1 till yesterday and still 250/1 which is ridiculous while E/W can be had.
I like this bet:
24 Jul Single Open Chris Froome to win the Tour de France 5 or more times (Team Sky Specials) 20/1 Team Sky Specials Stake £20.00 Returns £420.00
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
Agree entirely, 48% voted Remain so you only need to add 3% from the 52% who voted Leave to have a majority of 51% for EEA/single market. May has the potential to unite the country on that basis, if you want to end immigration then go and join UKIP!
Quite. I'd welcome the departure of Labour's Red BNP wing to them too!
Yes, if UKIP wants to become a British Front National then so be it
And yet again, Tessa Jowell making me sure that Corbyn should stay. Empty platitudes like "Labour should reach out to communities" is going to do worse in a General Election than Corbyn's (flawed) platform.
Today Corbyn was reaching out at an event organised to honour the Cuban government which imprisons trade unionists and left wing dissidents. Sadly, with Jezza as leader something as basic as engaging with non-believers does have to be argued for as he is incapable of moving outside his comfort zone.
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The bottom line here is that they concluded they wouldn't have won anyway with any of Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. And were probably right.
Things have changed somewhat since then. We have a new PM, the country has voted for Brexit, the government has abandoned its economic and fiscal policy, the future is very uncertain. What we have also learned is that Corbyn has no interest in leading the Parliamentary party. Members who vote for him again will be voting for that. There is no doubt hundreds of thousands will.
Government approval has gone from -11 to -30, Cameron's ratings are worse than Corbyn's and Osborne's economic credibility have all gone in the space of the year, yet the Tories still lead by 7% in the opinion polls. It doesn't take a genius to work out what the problem is.
And where is the evidence that Eagle (or anyone else) would be better?
Of the list of reasons you gave the other day for why Eagle would be a better leader than Corbyn, the only one I agreed with was that she is better in the Commons (and even that has little impact on how people vote in elections--ask William Hague).
Howard was not that much more appealing than IDS but he was better in parliament and had more appeal with his party's MPs
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
Agree entirely, 48% voted Remain so you only need to add 3% from the 52% who voted Leave to have a majority of 51% for EEA/single market. May has the potential to unite the country on that basis, if you want to end immigration then go and join UKIP!
That assumes the 48% Remain automatically transfers to support for the EEA. Some of them (especially among the old Labour left) might feel that if we're out of the political union and worker protections, we may as well limit immigration.
Given the referendum was just won substantially on controlling immigration, I don't think you can turn around and keep it at pretty much the same system.
I want the Labour party to carry on forever. Which other market could you lay Andy Burnham at 12-1 in ?
Speaking personally, Andy Burnham is still the only person I would even CONSIDER ousting Corbyn for (except if Clive Lewis delivers on some of the hype).
I want the Labour party to carry on forever. Which other market could you lay Andy Burnham at 12-1 in ?
You can still lay Richie Porte at 25/1 on the Tour de France. Not quite as good but even better chance. Tour odds are interesting right now. Yates is still 33/1. But that makes him fourth favourite. Meintjes was 500/1 till yesterday and still 250/1 which is ridiculous while E/W can be had.
I like this bet:
24 Jul Single Open Chris Froome to win the Tour de France 5 or more times (Team Sky Specials) 20/1 Team Sky Specials Stake £20.00 Returns £420.00
I have £10 on Yates e/w to win at 301, which is worth £50 cash out right now and probably still value at 34. Also have £14 on Meintjes at 501 which is only worth £16 but I expect to get much more valuable after Ventoux and is still great value at 251.
The wild card is Dan Martin who is still 41 and that's just ridiculous. There is a risk he can't get over Ventoux but I expect him to TT well especially on the mountain TT in week three. Also Kreuziger is still 151 and he can time trial, he could easily get top 3 after stage 13 and make the cash out money.
I think he should be on the ballot and I will rejoin to give it one last shot but if he wins again I genuinely believe Labour is finished as a potential,future government. I say that because there will be an exodus of non-Corbynites and the Momentum crowd will gain control of the NEC and stitch up the party rules to ensure no-one but a hard leftie can win again, we'll get annual mandatory reselections etc et.
There will be a split because 170 MPs will have nothing to lose because they know they will be deselected before the next GE. It is a very different scenario to SDP1 when only about a dozen MPs defected. If Corbyn Labour ceases to be the official opposition for the next 4 years and are just a rump of 40 MPs (4th largest grouping behind the SNP} they will wither from public view. They have no god-given right to exist and could easily disappear from the political scene in England/Wales as fast as they did in Scotland.
They will be removed from view earlier than that because in the event of a split Corbyn will cease to be Leader of the Opposition in parliament, with the majority of Labour MPs having jumped. Even if in the short term a formal new party isn't created, that could still happen if the PLP does enough to convince Bercow that it is operating independently and that Corbyn is no longer the parliamentary leader. It might need to rename itself the Independent Parliamentary Labour Party.
I want the Labour party to carry on forever. Which other market could you lay Andy Burnham at 12-1 in ?
Speaking personally, Andy Burnham is still the only person I would even CONSIDER ousting Corbyn for (except if Clive Lewis delivers on some of the hype).
I reckon Clive Lewis is the man for the job personally !
Andy is OK but certainly not a 12-1 shot at the moment
I want the Labour party to carry on forever. Which other market could you lay Andy Burnham at 12-1 in ?
Speaking personally, Andy Burnham is still the only person I would even CONSIDER ousting Corbyn for (except if Clive Lewis delivers on some of the hype).
Why Burnham? He is a serial loser. Given his current attempts to get nominated to run Greater Manchester, it is pretty clear he has lost interest in national politics. Plus given the fact that he is failing to pick up support in his new quest, why do you think the country would react differently to him as whole?
Lewis, from all I have seen of him, is a nasty piece of work. Not a collegiate type to bring the party together at all.
Just when it looked like we might be entering a period of calm and stability, along come the Labour Party. Their commitment to giving us something to LOL about is much appreciated.
Young Corbynite on Twitter asking what Labour need to do to win Scotland back from the SNP. Will you tell him, or shall I?
This Labour spat is kind of calm. As in it will surprise no-one outside of the Left. The Left will fight one another then split. It's why the UK has EIGHT Communist parties according to Wiki. That's JUST Communist parties. It doesn't include any Socialist Worker parties.
You're right, I forget about the endless factionalism of the left. Even within the small number of Scottish political parties, there is Solidarity, RISE, TUSC and the actual Commies. Then they act surprised when they get routed by the Christian Party ('Proclaiming Christ's Lordship').
The 2007 Scottish Parliament election had Labour, Solidarity, Socialist Labour, Scottish Socialist, Communist and Socialist Equality plus a number of the others were on the Left of the spectrum (possibly including the Greens).
Yes and a surprising number actually got elected! Were they well known or did people actually vote for their policies.
We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.
The referendum was to leave the EU not end all immigration and trade completely.
The "pull out of everything - ignore the 48" brigade need a good talking to. Clearly the sensible approach by the new PM is to go for as near the status quo as possible, while honouring the result of the referendum. Whether she will get that from Europe is debatable - but she has more chance than any Leaver would have done. The Conservative Party should be proud of itself this past fortnight - it has ruthlessly weeded out the nutters and incompetents and presented the country with a PM who has the best chance of bring some degree of stability back to these divided isles. As for these being dangerous times for the Tories. Hmm. Have they seen the state Labour are in? Makes Tory divisions look like a playground spat.
Agree entirely, 48% voted Remain so you only need to add 3% from the 52% who voted Leave to have a majority of 51% for EEA/single market. May has the potential to unite the country on that basis, if you want to end immigration then go and join UKIP!
That assumes the 48% Remain automatically transfers to support for the EEA. Some of them (especially among the old Labour left) might feel that if we're out of the political union and worker protections, we may as well limit immigration.
Given the referendum was just won substantially on controlling immigration, I don't think you can turn around and keep it at pretty much the same system.
Well tough, the referendum was won on leaving the EU not controlling immigration and even in the single market and with free movement we would still be free of directives and regulations not concerning trade.
Of course the 48% Remain will transfer almost unanimously to the single market now the EU is not an option and the unions will also likely back a deal given the risk of higher unemployment if we leave the single market. That is why both polls I showed tonight had a clear lead for the single market and free movement over a UK without either
You have to wonder how bad the United States will let it get before it realises the Second Amendment needs repealled.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
They didn't do anything after 6 year olds were killed why would they do anything now? The only way I can see them doing anything is if a toddler blonde blue eyed daughter of a right wing Congressman gets shot and is taped on camera something so shocking it would make the country sick, and even then they might not act.
You have to wonder how bad the United States will let it get before it realises the Second Amendment needs repealled.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
They didn't do anything after 6 year olds were killed why would they do anything now? The only way I can see them doing anything is if a toddler blonde blue eyed daughter of a right wing Congressman gets shot and is taped on camera something so shocking it would make the country sick, and even then they might not act.
To an American a 6yo with a live firearm is a tragedy.
A black man with a gun is a travesty.
As black people use their rights, especially in open carry states, the law will tighten to the stage that even Republicans realise the Second Amendment has to go.
Sri Lanka 1994 Bangladesh 1996 New Zealand 1999 São Tomé & Príncipe 2005 Haiti 2008 Finland 2010 Peru 2011 Senegal 2013 Norway 2013 Poland 2014 (U.K. 2016)
You have to wonder how bad the United States will let it get before it realises the Second Amendment needs repealled.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
They didn't do anything after 6 year olds were killed why would they do anything now? The only way I can see them doing anything is if a toddler blonde blue eyed daughter of a right wing Congressman gets shot and is taped on camera something so shocking it would make the country sick, and even then they might not act.
To an American a 6yo with a live firearm is a tragedy.
A black man with a gun is a travesty.
As black people use their rights, especially in open carry states, the law will tighten to the stage that even Republicans realise the Second Amendment has to go.
The interesting thing is that in Victorian times anyone could buy a gun in the UK, yet there wasn't much gun violence. Maybe most people couldn't afford to buy one, and those that did exercised traditional British restraint in using them.
You have to wonder how bad the United States will let it get before it realises the Second Amendment needs repealled.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
They didn't do anything after 6 year olds were killed why would they do anything now? The only way I can see them doing anything is if a toddler blonde blue eyed daughter of a right wing Congressman gets shot and is taped on camera something so shocking it would make the country sick, and even then they might not act.
The outrage is very selective - 2 blacks killed by white cops and African Americans are protesting all over the place. Yet about Chicago where 1,800 African Americans have been shot so far this year, mainly by other African Americans, there has not even been a small squeak by those who allegedly believe that black lives matter.
If they really believe black lives matter, they should concentrate their efforts on places like Chicago. But they are really just another racist left wing pressure group.
There are clearly some bad cops out there, but this isn't the way to handle it.
I am a bit surprised that none of the senior reporters seem to understand the British Constitution. I thought that might have been a requirement for the job...
Hello
Yep. This mandate idea is nonsense. Brown, Major, Callaghan plus at least a Baker's dozen of others put the kibosh on the whole concept.
Not quite. The record of PM's being chosen by internal party mechanism while in post at the subsequent election is rather poor:
Brown lost, Callaghan lost, Douglas Home lost.
Major won the election, but lost seats in 92
I think that the last PM who assumed office this way who increased their majority in the subsequent election was MacMillan in 1959.
Of course none of them had to face an opposition as chaotic and hopeless as the current Labour party!
To be fair how often do government's increase their majority?
I thought 2015 was the first modern era time a government increased both its share of the vote and seats albeit even then that is only if you exclude the Lib Dems.
1983 was the previous example, with 1974 (Oct) and 1966, 1959 and 1955 being other post war re-elections with increased majorities. I count a government gaining seats 6 times out of 19 postwar elections. Not that rare-unless you choose a new PM in government.
1983 is an increased majority on a lower share of the vote. The SDP split made the government vote much more effective so special circumstances.
1974 (Oct) also exceptional as witnessed by the fact it's the only year we include the month of the election with the year.
You have to wonder how bad the United States will let it get before it realises the Second Amendment needs repealled.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
They didn't do anything after 6 year olds were killed why would they do anything now? The only way I can see them doing anything is if a toddler blonde blue eyed daughter of a right wing Congressman gets shot and is taped on camera something so shocking it would make the country sick, and even then they might not act.
To an American a 6yo with a live firearm is a tragedy.
A black man with a gun is a travesty.
As black people use their rights, especially in open carry states, the law will tighten to the stage that even Republicans realise the Second Amendment has to go.
Dream on - there is not a chance the 2nd amendment will be repealed, for better or worse.
You have to wonder how bad the United States will let it get before it realises the Second Amendment needs repealled.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
They didn't do anything after 6 year olds were killed why would they do anything now? The only way I can see them doing anything is if a toddler blonde blue eyed daughter of a right wing Congressman gets shot and is taped on camera something so shocking it would make the country sick, and even then they might not act.
The outrage is very selective - 2 blacks killed by white cops and African Americans are protesting all over the place. Yet about Chicago where 1,800 African Americans have been shot so far this year, mainly by other African Americans, there has not even been a small squeak by those who allegedly believe that black lives matter.
If they really believe black lives matter, they should concentrate their efforts on places like Chicago. But they are really just another racist left wing pressure group.
There are clearly some bad cops out there, but this isn't the way to handle it.
New York City has successfully reduced gun violence over the last 20 years. The mystery is why the same methods haven't been applied to other cities like Chicago. For example the homicide rate in NYC is now only about three times that of London, a big improvement on a few years ago.
You have to wonder how bad the United States will let it get before it realises the Second Amendment needs repealled.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
They didn't do anything after 6 year olds were killed why would they do anything now? The only way I can see them doing anything is if a toddler blonde blue eyed daughter of a right wing Congressman gets shot and is taped on camera something so shocking it would make the country sick, and even then they might not act.
To an American a 6yo with a live firearm is a tragedy.
A black man with a gun is a travesty.
As black people use their rights, especially in open carry states, the law will tighten to the stage that even Republicans realise the Second Amendment has to go.
The interesting thing is that in Victorian times anyone could buy a gun in the UK, yet there wasn't much gun violence. Maybe most people couldn't afford to buy one, and those that did exercised traditional British restraint in using them.
Also consider their cost and the costs of munitions.
When bullets cost pennies there is little reason to have restraint on the side. If bullets were $100 each we'd see a very different culture.
Comments
Labour is in for a pasting with Corbyn as leader anyway so that ceases to be a reason not to split.
Be interested to know how many PB posters who voted Labour in 2015 would vote for a Corbyn led party in 2020. There only appear to be about 3 or 4 loyalists left.
We all (me included) tend to talk about the Single Market without necessarily understanding the consequences, impacts and costs of being a member or not.
Thanks sir - but in fairness to David he conceded the point up thread.
Can you cite a 'precedent', where the proper construction of rules is left to a bunch of amateurs? Where the courts are ousted? Even without any purported clause to that effect?
How does 'discriminatory' come into it, anyhow? The courts are interested in other things too:-
i) the proper construction of the rules
ii) the rules of natural justice are implied as a matter of course [unless there is very clear language to the contrary, which the courts may still choose to override]
iii) good faith [even if both of the above are complied with, there can be no hint of ulterior or improper motive]
That said, it is doubtlessly the case that he will be re-elected Labour leader. Labour members are clearly less and less interested in the party being a credible Parliamentary organisation. They prefer the irrelevancy of demonstrating - online and on the streets.
The horror.
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/752629861424959488
Theresa May has disaster written all over her. Gordon Brown in heels.
You seem a bit confused, not for the first time. I wasn't 'absolutely convinced' that Remain would win. I agreed with you (unusually!) that Remain was more likely to win.
In any case, being wrong in a prediction like the result of a referendum or election is nothing to be ashamed of. It's not like believing ludicrously silly things, such as that Cameron wouldn't deliver on the referendum, or that May won't take us out of the EU.
http://news.sky.com/story/two-bailiffs-killed-in-us-courthouse-shooting-10499073
I totally accept that EEA would have less short-term impact than WTO, that's a no-brainer.
'We're back to trusting polls that support the pro-EU position again I see?
Meanwhile on Newsnight, Matthew Hancock MP was waffling away and didn't seem to be able to come up with a single thing Theresa May is likely to do differently as Prime Minister.
Article 50 won't be implemtented this year (if ever) we know that. Meanwhile we have her close allies Green and Grieve hinting that actually Brexit doesn't mean Brexit afterall...
These are unbelievably dangerous times for the Tory Party.'
Any backsliding and May is toast.
It's been pointed out to me in Browns case that that we vote for parties and not leaders. Personally I think you vote for both but hey ho. It's an old can of worms still occasionally wriggling.
Corbynites will stand as The Labour Party. The Splitters will stand as... whatever. The Labour Party has an inbuilt vote. Sure, it might not be enough to give them 200 seats (in fact it almost certainly won't be).
But it will be enough to reduce the Splitters to 20 seats tops.
FPTP is brutal. There is no reason why anyone would vote for Chuka Umunna or Angela Eagle without the "The Labour Party" tag on the voting slip.
"In a perverse way, the relentless barrage was a compliment, a sign that Leadsom was seen as a real threat. That attitude was best summed up in a contemptible text to Tory MPs from Nick Boles: "What if Theresa stumbles? Are we really confident that the membership won't vote for a fresh face who shares their attitudes about much of modern life?”
Whatever it took, Leadsom had to be kept away from the hustings where her smiley, down-to-earth style, experience of the real world and spirited fight for Brexit might endear her to the rank and file.
Well, the skullduggers succeeded. Critics will say it simply proves Leadsom wasn’t up to being PM. Privately, I suspect she would agree."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/how-the-skulduggers-succeeded-in-bringing-an-end-to-andrea-leads/
Escaping Brexit Britain to the New (Pro-EU) World.
May has done none of these things. She is not leader for all time, but then she is no self centred egomaniac on Brown's scale.
The BBC had an article on the prevalence of black gun clubs. I suspect that might make the difference.
One thing May should do is change this countries systems (e.g. planning, health and welfare) so they're fit for purpose in a migratory world. We can't keep treating our own working poor as if they're some kind of fungible commodity.
Every ounce of political logic indicates she should go for it before the nutters drag her down, but will she?
Of the list of reasons you gave the other day for why Eagle would be a better leader than Corbyn, the only one I agreed with was that she is better in the Commons (and even that has little impact on how people vote in elections--ask William Hague).
The result will be the same, Labour are smashed. But with the right wing of their party gutted, Labour have no path back.
Leaving that aside, I think Rod and Michael Mansfield QC are right; it's very hard to construe the badly-drafted rules as meaning anything other than that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated in a contest where he is challenged.
Hence the rallying around May.
Just not unarguable. I.e. they can still earn a fee.
But the actual change makes it very clear. The leader does not need to re-nominate.
They won't be happy until the foreigners have all left.
Actually, sorry that's wrong - Even then they won't be happy.
Nevertheless this will go to a vote of the NEC which Corbyn will probably win, thus ushering in the exodus of millions of moderate supporters and the likely death of the party. Good night!
24 Jul
Single
Open
Chris Froome to win the Tour de France 5 or more times
(Team Sky Specials)
20/1
Team Sky Specials
Stake
£20.00
Returns
£420.00
Given the referendum was just won substantially on controlling immigration, I don't think you can turn around and keep it at pretty much the same system.
The wild card is Dan Martin who is still 41 and that's just ridiculous. There is a risk he can't get over Ventoux but I expect him to TT well especially on the mountain TT in week three. Also Kreuziger is still 151 and he can time trial, he could easily get top 3 after stage 13 and make the cash out money.
Andy is OK but certainly not a 12-1 shot at the moment
Lewis, from all I have seen of him, is a nasty piece of work. Not a collegiate type to bring the party together at all.
EVERYBODY SUCKS 2016
the us is doomed
GIANT METEOR 2016
just end it already
1. Allows Corbyn to win leadership election and stay on for years
2. Allows Left to deselect New Labour MPs
3. New boundaries give Tories more seats
Of course the 48% Remain will transfer almost unanimously to the single market now the EU is not an option and the unions will also likely back a deal given the risk of higher unemployment if we leave the single market. That is why both polls I showed tonight had a clear lead for the single market and free movement over a UK without either
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.120629096
When Theresa May becomes Prime Minister, the U.K. will be the 11th country to have had 2 women prime ministers.
((There are 2 countries to have had 3 women prime ministers (Peru and Poland))).
(Not counting a few women who were briefly acting prime minister in various countries).
A black man with a gun is a travesty.
As black people use their rights, especially in open carry states, the law will tighten to the stage that even Republicans realise the Second Amendment has to go.
Bangladesh 1996
New Zealand 1999
São Tomé & Príncipe 2005
Haiti 2008
Finland 2010
Peru 2011
Senegal 2013
Norway 2013
Poland 2014
(U.K. 2016)
If they really believe black lives matter, they should concentrate their efforts on places like Chicago. But they are really just another racist left wing pressure group.
There are clearly some bad cops out there, but this isn't the way to handle it.
1974 (Oct) also exceptional as witnessed by the fact it's the only year we include the month of the election with the year.
Momentum @BetterMomentum
@BaronVonDuncs @OwenJones84 YouGov isn't Tory. Not everything that you disagree with is a Tory plot.
When bullets cost pennies there is little reason to have restraint on the side. If bullets were $100 each we'd see a very different culture.