Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leadsom candidacy is reminder that those seeking high o

1234568»

Comments

  • Options
    ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819

    Does it really take Burnham that long to put his flip flops on?

    @georgeeaton: Andy Burnham is to call for three-four day delay to Labour leadership contest to allow further negotiations, I'm told.

    To what end? Both sides have put their chips down. Neither can pick them up again without being humiliated. not that Burnham would necessarily understand that concept.
    I think the peace deal is Corbyn stands down, the PLP agree to nominate one of McDonnell or Lewis and agree that Jez and McDonnell will stay on in the shadow cabinet.
    Sounds about right. The only way to settle this, really.
    Oh great. So we get McDonnell as LOTO. No thanks.
    He seems more competent than Corbyn regardless of the politics - so he should do a better job of holding the government to account at the very least.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,094

    Pulpstar said:

    This NEC decision is just another place where the party has manouvred itself into a lose/lose situation.

    Correct.

    The same could be said of the PLP coup

    and last years nominations by some in the PLP

    and the paucity of Cooper/Kendalls/Burnhams policies

    and the fact that all Blairite shortlists for 15 years has left us with a PLP out of touch with its core vote.

    There is no solution that saves Labour IMO
    Has a PLP ever been as out of touch with it's members as Labour is now ?
    In the Labour party, the PLP is out of touch with the members and the original core working class voters. The Labour members are also out of touch with the working class voters. The working class voters are more in touch with UKIP policies.
    So no problem there then?

    Not quite..

    The PLP is out of touch with its members but in touch with other Labour voters (the middle class labour voter and ethnic minorities). They are out of touch with the original core working class voter but there is a question of do they vote anyway.
    The Labour membership is out of touch with all Labour voters except other members. They are also split roughly in 2 between Corbynites and non-Corbynites.
    The Labour leadership is in touch with no one except Cuban appreciates and some who attend allotment meetings in Islington.
  • Options
    Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,176
    I assumed Angela E's press conference today had been more interesting than yesterday's when I saw this headline on the BBC website: "Eagle tries to carry off Australian boy"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36771205

    But it was nothing to do with her, alas... :-)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    There's been a terrible train crash in Italy:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36774059

    just seen a photo. Bloody hell, that's a horrible one. The death toll will almost certainly be very high. That front carriage is completely smashed.

    Signal failure of some sort, surely? A second Abermule maybe.
    According to the article, it was two four-coach trains. Only four coaches seem fully intact afterwards, a fifth badly damaged, with perhaps a sixth covered with debris. As for the other two ...
    If they were just half full, that's surely going to be seventy deaths for a start.

    They must both have been going at quite a pace too and not had much time to brake.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    DanSmith said:

    @carldinnen: NEW; 3 Labour sources tell me the Leadership tried to remove Jonathan Ashworth from his NEC position today, but were blocked by the Shad Cab

    They aren't confident of winning the NEC vote are they.
    Nope. Might well end up in the courts.

    I hope Justice Sweeney is the judge.

    Corbyn must hope his opponents don't hire Lord Grabiner.
    Out of interest, is there a viable pretext for removing NEC members against their will and before their time is up?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. Just dropping in on holiday to check that nothing much was happening, any ideas when the ballots will be sent out for those of us voting for the next Tory leader?

    Oh...

    Round about autumn 2024.
    Looks that way, I'll have to pay subs for another decade to finally get a vote on the leader!

    On a positive note, a pile of winnings have arrived, although I guess Betfair are waiting until tomorrow to settle Next PM market, even though they settled next Conservative leader already!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,540

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Remember theory that Burnham didn't resign as he wanted Corbynista support for Manchester-mayor bid?

    Am told Momentum backing Tony Lloyd.

    Missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize though.
    Andrea won that......
    I have closely followed the saga of Andrea Leadsom's CV and have also worked in banks and fund management companies.

    I my view her CV was accurate. She was the corporate banking manager for Barings when it suffered the Leeson fraud, she did have a title of director at Barclays bank, as did very many others. She did have the titles she gave when at Invesco Perpetual.

    It was one or two of her supporters who seem to have incorrectly interpreted what her roles were. For example, she was not responsible for managing billions of pounds of funds when she was at Invesco, although her financial customers at Barclays would have had billions in loans.

    Her remarks about being a mother were entirely accurate and contribute to her life experience and was valid in showing her breadth of experience.

    Maybe she would have been on a steeper learning curve the May when it comes to the formalities of the PM's office but she does have a vision and optimism which May lacks but is needed in a leader.

    May is more like Brown and will go missing in times of controversy, as she did in the referendum debate.
    The Leadsom cv fiasco was as close to a swiftboating as I have seen in UK politics.
    From Wiki:

    The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

    Where were the untruths?

    In Leadsom's CV and the claims of her supporters?

    Or in the criticisms of her CV?
    As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,585
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. Just dropping in on holiday to check that nothing much was happening, any ideas when the ballots will be sent out for those of us voting for the next Tory leader?

    Oh...

    Round about autumn 2024.
    Looks that way, I'll have to pay subs for another decade to finally get a vote on the leader!

    On a positive note, a pile of winnings have arrived, although I guess Betfair are waiting until tomorrow to settle Next PM market, even though they settled next Conservative leader already!
    They'll wait until May has actually kissed the Queen's hand, patted a corgi and so forth.
  • Options
    paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    Mr. 64, yep, mostly fantasy (although I have short stories in paranormal and sci-fi stuff too). I write both serious stuff and comedy.

    If it sounds your cup of tea, my books are up here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/

    Incidentally, it sounds like Explorations (sci-fi anthology with a short story by me) will be out August/September.

    congrats. your pic looks even scarier sized up. I managed the usual suspects ie hobbit and LOTR in my youth, and a couple of others. have stacks of unread books here but struggle to make the time to read them.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,585
    MTimT said:

    DanSmith said:

    @carldinnen: NEW; 3 Labour sources tell me the Leadership tried to remove Jonathan Ashworth from his NEC position today, but were blocked by the Shad Cab

    They aren't confident of winning the NEC vote are they.
    Nope. Might well end up in the courts.

    I hope Justice Sweeney is the judge.

    Corbyn must hope his opponents don't hire Lord Grabiner.
    Out of interest, is there a viable pretext for removing NEC members against their will and before their time is up?
    Insanity?
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Does it really take Burnham that long to put his flip flops on?

    @georgeeaton: Andy Burnham is to call for three-four day delay to Labour leadership contest to allow further negotiations, I'm told.

    To what end? Both sides have put their chips down. Neither can pick them up again without being humiliated. not that Burnham would necessarily understand that concept.
    I think the peace deal is Corbyn stands down, the PLP agree to nominate one of McDonnell or Lewis and agree that Jez and McDonnell will stay on in the shadow cabinet.
    Sounds about right. The only way to settle this, really.
    Oh great. So we get McDonnell as LOTO. No thanks.
    Now I'm with you on this! McDonnell has all of Corbyn's flaws, and not even any of his few strengths (the fact that Corbyn seems to Joe Public like a "nice and genuine guy", for all his ineptitude).

    Clive Lewis is an attractive candidate on paper, but I would need to see a lot more of him before I was reassured that he wouldn't implode, Leadsom-style, as soon as the spotlight went on him properly.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Remember theory that Burnham didn't resign as he wanted Corbynista support for Manchester-mayor bid?

    Am told Momentum backing Tony Lloyd.

    Missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize though.
    Andrea won that......
    I have closely followed the saga of Andrea Leadsom's CV and have also worked in banks and fund management companies.

    I my view her CV was accurate. She was the corporate banking manager for Barings when it suffered the Leeson fraud, she did have a title of director at Barclays bank, as did very many others. She did have the titles she gave when at Invesco Perpetual.

    It was one or two of her supporters who seem to have incorrectly interpreted what her roles were. For example, she was not responsible for managing billions of pounds of funds when she was at Invesco, although her financial customers at Barclays would have had billions in loans.

    Her remarks about being a mother were entirely accurate and contribute to her life experience and was valid in showing her breadth of experience.

    Maybe she would have been on a steeper learning curve the May when it comes to the formalities of the PM's office but she does have a vision and optimism which May lacks but is needed in a leader.

    May is more like Brown and will go missing in times of controversy, as she did in the referendum debate.
    The Leadsom cv fiasco was as close to a swiftboating as I have seen in UK politics.
    From Wiki:

    The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

    Where were the untruths?

    In Leadsom's CV and the claims of her supporters?

    Or in the criticisms of her CV?
    As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.
    She called herself a chief investment officer when she was a senior. That's a pretty big whopper. Huge difference.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,585
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    This NEC decision is just another place where the party has manouvred itself into a lose/lose situation.

    Correct.

    The same could be said of the PLP coup

    and last years nominations by some in the PLP

    and the paucity of Cooper/Kendalls/Burnhams policies

    and the fact that all Blairite shortlists for 15 years has left us with a PLP out of touch with its core vote.

    There is no solution that saves Labour IMO
    Has a PLP ever been as out of touch with it's members as Labour is now ?
    In the Labour party, the PLP is out of touch with the members and the original core working class voters. The Labour members are also out of touch with the working class voters. The working class voters are more in touch with UKIP policies.
    So no problem there then?

    Not quite..

    The PLP is out of touch with its members but in touch with other Labour voters (the middle class labour voter and ethnic minorities). They are out of touch with the original core working class voter but there is a question of do they vote anyway.
    The Labour membership is out of touch with all Labour voters except other members. They are also split roughly in 2 between Corbynites and non-Corbynites.
    The Labour leadership is in touch with no one except Cuban appreciates and some who attend allotment meetings in Islington.
    Don't forget Moscow :-)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,034
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/results/

    The colaition has a majority - Hindmarsh and Herbert in doubt, I expect Hindmarsh will go ALP on absentee votes. No idea about Herbert.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193

    Jezza has received death threats this week

    Labour Press
    Statement from Jeremy Corbyn

    It is extremely concerning that Angela Eagle has been the victim of a threatening act and that other MPs are receiving abuse and threats. As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour Party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement. I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.

    Part of me says, "yes, respect and dignity required on all sides.".

    Part of me says "now, Mr Corbyn,you might just have an inkling of how those people on the end of IRA death threats felt...."
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,540
    Y0kel said:

    GIN1138 said:

    kjohnw said:

    does anyone think May will ditch Osbornes plan to cut corporation tax to 15%?

    More to the point, will May ditch Osborne?
    I pondered this for about 20 seconds the other day. I think popular opinion is he is a dead duck, but I'm not so sure.

    Would you want him inside or outside the tent. Still easily the best political operator of his generation.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,034
    Danny565 said:

    Does it really take Burnham that long to put his flip flops on?

    @georgeeaton: Andy Burnham is to call for three-four day delay to Labour leadership contest to allow further negotiations, I'm told.

    To what end? Both sides have put their chips down. Neither can pick them up again without being humiliated. not that Burnham would necessarily understand that concept.
    I think the peace deal is Corbyn stands down, the PLP agree to nominate one of McDonnell or Lewis and agree that Jez and McDonnell will stay on in the shadow cabinet.
    Sounds about right. The only way to settle this, really.
    Oh great. So we get McDonnell as LOTO. No thanks.
    Now I'm with you on this! McDonnell has all of Corbyn's flaws, and not even any of his few strengths (the fact that Corbyn seems to Joe Public like a "nice and genuine guy", for all his ineptitude).

    Clive Lewis is an attractive candidate on paper, but I would need to see a lot more of him before I was reassured that he wouldn't implode, Leadsom-style, as soon as the spotlight went on him properly.
    He called Wes Streeting a jumped up turd, but apart from that he's looked fairly solid to me. McDonnell obviously an experienced political operator.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,739
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Remember theory that Burnham didn't resign as he wanted Corbynista support for Manchester-mayor bid?

    Am told Momentum backing Tony Lloyd.

    Missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize though.
    Andrea won that......
    I have closely followed the saga of Andrea Leadsom's CV and have also worked in banks and fund management companies.

    I my view her CV was accurate. She was the corporate banking manager for Barings when it suffered the Leeson fraud, she did have a title of director at Barclays bank, as did very many others. She did have the titles she gave when at Invesco Perpetual.

    It was one or two of her supporters who seem to have incorrectly interpreted what her roles were. For example, she was not responsible for managing billions of pounds of funds when she was at Invesco, although her financial customers at Barclays would have had billions in loans.

    Her remarks about being a mother were entirely accurate and contribute to her life experience and was valid in showing her breadth of experience.

    Maybe she would have been on a steeper learning curve the May when it comes to the formalities of the PM's office but she does have a vision and optimism which May lacks but is needed in a leader.

    May is more like Brown and will go missing in times of controversy, as she did in the referendum debate.
    The Leadsom cv fiasco was as close to a swiftboating as I have seen in UK politics.
    From Wiki:

    The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

    Where were the untruths?

    In Leadsom's CV and the claims of her supporters?

    Or in the criticisms of her CV?
    As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.
    Didn't Bernard Jenkin say she had managed hundreds of staff and millions of pounds?
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.''

    Appoint a leader in haste....repent at leisure.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,585
    I've seen a tweet saying may be 16:16 vote on NEC. Chair gets casting? Who is chair?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,856
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Remember theory that Burnham didn't resign as he wanted Corbynista support for Manchester-mayor bid?

    Am told Momentum backing Tony Lloyd.

    Missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize though.
    Andrea won that......
    I have closely followed the saga of Andrea Leadsom's CV and have also worked in banks and fund management companies.

    I my view her CV was accurate. She was the corporate banking manager for Barings when it suffered the Leeson fraud, she did have a title of director at Barclays bank, as did very many others. She did have the titles she gave when at Invesco Perpetual.

    It was one or two of her supporters who seem to have incorrectly interpreted what her roles were. For example, she was not responsible for managing billions of pounds of funds when she was at Invesco, although her financial customers at Barclays would have had billions in loans.

    Her remarks about being a mother were entirely accurate and contribute to her life experience and was valid in showing her breadth of experience.

    Maybe she would have been on a steeper learning curve the May when it comes to the formalities of the PM's office but she does have a vision and optimism which May lacks but is needed in a leader.

    May is more like Brown and will go missing in times of controversy, as she did in the referendum debate.
    The Leadsom cv fiasco was as close to a swiftboating as I have seen in UK politics.
    From Wiki:

    The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

    Where were the untruths?

    In Leadsom's CV and the claims of her supporters?

    Or in the criticisms of her CV?
    As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.
    'Some people' included her supporters - which Leadsom did nothing to correct. For example, Jenkins comments about managing 'billions of pounds and hundreds of people'?

    You do know that the last decade of her career was worked part time don't you?

    Nothing wrong with working part-time - just it wasn't immediately clear from her CV or her supporter's comments....

    http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.id/2016/07/andrea-leadsom-more-cv-woe.html
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    edited July 2016
    RodCrosby said:

    There's a clever lawyer somewhere who thinks the NEC can tear up the rules "by consent", and impose new ones, and that might be more copper-bottomed, legally, than wrongly-construing the existing rules.

    'Clause II.
    Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party

    1. General
    A. The following procedures provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC, shall be followed when conducting elections for Party officers.'

    [all the widely-discussed clauses then follow]


    I had to point out what I think "consent" means...

    Are the "rules" intended to be so deliberately vague and open to interpretation, to allow for a situation like they have with a leader who won't go, or are they just really badly written?
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Remember theory that Burnham didn't resign as he wanted Corbynista support for Manchester-mayor bid?

    Am told Momentum backing Tony Lloyd.

    Missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize though.
    Andrea won that......
    I have closely followed the saga of Andrea Leadsom's CV and have also worked in banks and fund management companies.

    I my view her CV was accurate. She was the corporate banking manager for Barings when it suffered the Leeson fraud, she did have a title of director at Barclays bank, as did very many others. She did have the titles she gave when at Invesco Perpetual.

    It was one or two of her supporters who seem to have incorrectly interpreted what her roles were. For example, she was not responsible for managing billions of pounds of funds when she was at Invesco, although her financial customers at Barclays would have had billions in loans.

    Her remarks about being a mother were entirely accurate and contribute to her life experience and was valid in showing her breadth of experience.

    Maybe she would have been on a steeper learning curve the May when it comes to the formalities of the PM's office but she does have a vision and optimism which May lacks but is needed in a leader.

    May is more like Brown and will go missing in times of controversy, as she did in the referendum debate.
    The Leadsom cv fiasco was as close to a swiftboating as I have seen in UK politics.
    From Wiki:

    The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

    Where were the untruths?

    In Leadsom's CV and the claims of her supporters?

    Or in the criticisms of her CV?
    As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.
    Didn't Bernard Jenkin say she had managed hundreds of staff and millions of pounds?
    Did she say it?
  • Options
    PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 712
    edited July 2016
    Bernard Jenkin is an idiot, though
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,034

    I've seen a tweet saying may be 16:16 vote on NEC. Chair gets casting? Who is chair?

    Paddy Lillis. Unions.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,851
    MaxPB said:

    FF43 said:

    MaxPB said:

    if a low tax rate convinced Siemens to make second round of investment here despite not being in the single market then that's jobs created.

    Not necessarily because we are talking about overall net jobs. Jobs are created and lost all the time. It's only "obs created" if Siemens and similar companies invested more than they would otherwise have done and this over compensates for jobs lost.

    Brexit shouldn't affect the decision to reduce Corporation Tax beyond any constraints imposed on us by membership of the EU or EEA. It's about how many more jobs would be created (minus any losses) versus maintaining the tax take for all the public services and welfare that we like.

    That was my point, a lower corporation tax rate can tip investment decisions into a more favourable position. Overall given rational markets enough decisions will move into a more favourable position that could result in no net loss of jobs. However, given the tougher overall conditions for exports in the WTO (at least in the short term) we wouldn't get the income tax gains from higher employment levels. We may still benefit from higher levels of incoming business though, but that's a difficult calculation.
    It looks like we're agreed on the how the parameters play out. Just to finish off from my side, I wouldn't underrate the welfare issue. The prototype for the low corporation tax route is Ireland, which has a functioning, if underfunded, public health system. But you have to pay for your visits to your GP and the hospital. George Osborne was loudly condemned for his budget threats should Leave prevail but charging patients for use of the NHS goes well beyond any threats he made. Emigration is a cornerstone of Ireland's welfare policy: if you are very poor and very ill you are supported otherwise you emigrate. Not something that's going to be welcomed in the UK (especially if we get rid of Freedom of Movement!)
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,714
    Sandpit said:

    RodCrosby said:

    There's a clever lawyer somewhere who thinks the NEC can tear up the rules "by consent", and impose new ones, and that might be more copper-bottomed, legally, than wrongly-construing the existing rules.

    'Clause II.
    Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party

    1. General
    A. The following procedures provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC, shall be followed when conducting elections for Party officers.'

    [all the widely-discussed clauses then follow]


    I had to point out what I think "consent" means...

    Are the "rules" intended to be so deliberately vague and open to interpretation, to allow for a situation like they have with a leader who won't go, or are they just so badly written?
    There was an assumption than any leader who found himself in the situation Corbyn now finds himself in would do the decent thing and resign.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,739
    Scott_P said:

    You guys won (just), why are you still fighting?
    I haven't checked but I assume that the £/$ rate must be back where it was before the referendum?

    Have you seen Wag the Dog?

    The Brexit posters are vying to be Private Schuman...
    Unfortunately, no. I'll put it on the list.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,585
    Pulpstar said:

    I've seen a tweet saying may be 16:16 vote on NEC. Chair gets casting? Who is chair?

    Paddy Lillis. Unions.
    I feel the hand of history...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,714

    NEW THREAD NEW THREAD

  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,924
    Pulpstar said:

    Labour Insider
    @Labour_Insider
    From what we hear NEC will vote for Corbyn to get on ballot by a majority of 3.

    Looks too close to call

    Are you sweating yet Owls

    Are you sweating :o ?
    No quite calm

    The storm really comes if Corbyn is kept off the ballot.

    The PLP do not have a clue what they have started here.

    My CLP will be a war zone. New meeting called for 29/7/16 as a vote of confidence that apparently would have been carried by about 3 to 1 was denied last week.

    Pretty sure MPs deselection would carry too with current mood of members although that is less certain.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,540
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Remember theory that Burnham didn't resign as he wanted Corbynista support for Manchester-mayor bid?

    Am told Momentum backing Tony Lloyd.

    Missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize though.
    Andrea won that......
    I have closely followed the saga of Andrea Leadsom's CV and have also worked in banks and fund management companies.

    I my view her CV was accurate. She was the corporate banking manager for Barings when it suffered the Leeson fraud, she did have a title of director at Barclays bank, as did very many others. She did have the titles she gave when at Invesco Perpetual.

    It was one or two of her supporters who seem to have incorrectly interpreted what her roles were. For example, she was not responsible for managing billions of pounds of funds when she was at Invesco, although her financial customers at Barclays would have had billions in loans.

    Her remarks about being a mother were entirely accurate and contribute to her life experience and was valid in showing her breadth of experience.

    Maybe she would have been on a steeper learning curve the May when it comes to the formalities of the PM's office but she does have a vision and optimism which May lacks but is needed in a leader.

    May is more like Brown and will go missing in times of controversy, as she did in the referendum debate.
    The Leadsom cv fiasco was as close to a swiftboating as I have seen in UK politics.
    From Wiki:

    The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

    Where were the untruths?

    In Leadsom's CV and the claims of her supporters?

    Or in the criticisms of her CV?
    As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.
    She called herself a chief investment officer when she was a senior. That's a pretty big whopper. Huge difference.
    taffys said:

    ''As David pointed out there were no untruths in her cv. It just did not mean quite as much as some people thought it did.''

    Appoint a leader in haste....repent at leisure.

    I said she was clearly not ready. Indeed she may never be ready. That does not mean that what was done to her was even close to being right or that it is something we should welcome into our politics.
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sandpit said:

    RodCrosby said:

    There's a clever lawyer somewhere who thinks the NEC can tear up the rules "by consent", and impose new ones, and that might be more copper-bottomed, legally, than wrongly-construing the existing rules.

    'Clause II.
    Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party

    1. General
    A. The following procedures provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC, shall be followed when conducting elections for Party officers.'

    [all the widely-discussed clauses then follow]


    I had to point out what I think "consent" means...

    Are the "rules" intended to be so deliberately vague and open to interpretation, to allow for a situation like they have with a leader who won't go, or are they just really badly written?
    The rules seem pretty clear, and provide for the removal of the leader by a straightforward process [challenger(s), and election put to the members].

    It's the plotters who are looking for loopholes...
  • Options
    paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    ydoethur said:

    Mr. Simon, whilst I agree, the right is not immune to such daftness (see Baroness Warsi).

    when i first speed read that I thought you said Barons Wars. I thought that was a long way to go back. not sure there was much of a left and right in that constitutional crisis, although europe could be claimed to be the cause. when did left and right start being used in the modern political sense?
    French revolution, I believe. It was something like that in the Estates General, the (reactionary) clergy and aristocracy sat to the right of the Speaker and the representatives of the people (more progressive) sat to the left.
    Technically it was the National Assembly not the Estates General. But yes, that's where it comes from.
    I was dredging it from memory - apologies for the inaccuracies and thanks for the corrections. I was pretty close though. (IIRC, didn't Louis XVI recall the Estates General in a final throw of the dice to stave off revolution?)
    too many louis'! i'm already trying to get my head round how the louis in The Musketeers is related to the louis in Versailles (apologies for my low brow TV taste). I think they are father and son.
    Yes. Dying Musketeer king is father the Versailles king (or, Versailles king is the little Dauphin in Musketeers).
    I've always fancied visiting versailles. then I went to chatsworth last week and I'm afraid it was all too in your face, look how rich I am for my taste. which I guess was the whole point for them tho.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited July 2016
    ''That does not mean that what was done to her was even close to being right or that it is something we should welcome into our politics. ''

    There was also no time to scrutinise Theresa May's claim for the leadership.

    Something the tories will come to bitterly regret.
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    Sandpit said:

    RodCrosby said:

    There's a clever lawyer somewhere who thinks the NEC can tear up the rules "by consent", and impose new ones, and that might be more copper-bottomed, legally, than wrongly-construing the existing rules.

    'Clause II.
    Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party

    1. General
    A. The following procedures provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC, shall be followed when conducting elections for Party officers.'

    [all the widely-discussed clauses then follow]


    I had to point out what I think "consent" means...

    Are the "rules" intended to be so deliberately vague and open to interpretation, to allow for a situation like they have with a leader who won't go, or are they just so badly written?
    There was an assumption than any leader who found himself in the situation Corbyn now finds himself in would do the decent thing and resign.
    A theory. Strange how a party stuffed full of lawyers chose not to insert such a clause, which you might find in the constitution of your local Tiddlywinks Club...

    It's not as if the Labour Constitution is short on clauses.
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    MTimT said:

    DanSmith said:

    @carldinnen: NEW; 3 Labour sources tell me the Leadership tried to remove Jonathan Ashworth from his NEC position today, but were blocked by the Shad Cab

    They aren't confident of winning the NEC vote are they.
    Nope. Might well end up in the courts.

    I hope Justice Sweeney is the judge.

    Corbyn must hope his opponents don't hire Lord Grabiner.
    Out of interest, is there a viable pretext for removing NEC members against their will and before their time is up?
    There is an ice-pick sticking out of their skull?

    Improper head-gear for attending the meeting?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193

    ydoethur said:

    Mr. Simon, whilst I agree, the right is not immune to such daftness (see Baroness Warsi).

    when i first speed read that I thought you said Barons Wars. I thought that was a long way to go back. not sure there was much of a left and right in that constitutional crisis, although europe could be claimed to be the cause. when did left and right start being used in the modern political sense?
    French revolution, I believe. It was something like that in the Estates General, the (reactionary) clergy and aristocracy sat to the right of the Speaker and the representatives of the people (more progressive) sat to the left.
    Technically it was the National Assembly not the Estates General. But yes, that's where it comes from.
    I was dredging it from memory - apologies for the inaccuracies and thanks for the corrections. I was pretty close though. (IIRC, didn't Louis XVI recall the Estates General in a final throw of the dice to stave off revolution?)
    too many louis'! i'm already trying to get my head round how the louis in The Musketeers is related to the louis in Versailles (apologies for my low brow TV taste). I think they are father and son.
    Yes. Dying Musketeer king is father the Versailles king (or, Versailles king is the little Dauphin in Musketeers).
    I've always fancied visiting versailles. then I went to chatsworth last week and I'm afraid it was all too in your face, look how rich I am for my taste. which I guess was the whole point for them tho.
    Chatsworth looks like a 30's semi compared to Versailles!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,582
    RodCrosby said:

    Sandpit said:

    RodCrosby said:

    There's a clever lawyer somewhere who thinks the NEC can tear up the rules "by consent", and impose new ones, and that might be more copper-bottomed, legally, than wrongly-construing the existing rules.

    'Clause II.
    Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party

    1. General
    A. The following procedures provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC, shall be followed when conducting elections for Party officers.'

    [all the widely-discussed clauses then follow]


    I had to point out what I think "consent" means...

    Are the "rules" intended to be so deliberately vague and open to interpretation, to allow for a situation like they have with a leader who won't go, or are they just so badly written?
    There was an assumption than any leader who found himself in the situation Corbyn now finds himself in would do the decent thing and resign.
    A theory. Strange how a party stuffed full of lawyers chose not to insert such a clause, which you might find in the constitution of your local Tiddlywinks Club...

    It's not as if the Labour Constitution is short on clauses.
    Actually I think the assumption was that a sitting leader would have sufficient support that the question of needing nominations to defend his/her position would never arise.
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238

    I do dislike this line. Eagle reckons it's 'time for woman to lead Labour':
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36770627

    Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.

    :+1:
This discussion has been closed.