I still cant understand what corbyn expects to do if, as seems likely, he wins again. Months of mandatory reselections? Hardly taking the fight to the Tories.
I still cant understand what corbyn expects to do if, as seems likely, he wins again. Months of mandatory reselections? Hardly taking the fight to the Tories.
If May plays her cards right...
It is about reshaping labour party forever....and eating noodles.
The problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't lead. At all. A leader's job is to lead.
Incorrect.
A leaders job is to win.
No you're incorrect. The party's job is to win. The leader's job is to lead the party such that it can win.
Bless .... how very noble of you.
The two most recent electorally successful PM's would disagree - Thatcher and Blair. Their parties were the embodiment of their beliefs - Thatcherism and New Labour and they both knew their job as leader was to win. Otherwise the party was largely irrelevant.
Floater, always think positively, certainly be tough for sure given the arithmetic
If/when scotland becomes independent it will be interesting to see how the parties there evolve. I assume they would all split from their UK counterparts. Would the SNP begin to fracture once their main goal is achieved?
And we'd need to find a new home for those boats they voted for yesterday.
I still cant understand what corbyn expects to do if, as seems likely, he wins again. Months of mandatory reselections? Hardly taking the fight to the Tories.
If May plays her cards right...
It is about reshaping labour party forever....and eating noodles.
The overwhelming impression I have of Corbyn is that he's much more concerned about citizens of other countries. Be it the plight of Yemeni sex slaves or Bolivian toad farmers.
Despite his mandate Corbyn has yet to be tested in a national election.
He was leader at the time of the (national) local elections.
Worst performance ever.
Doesnt really count, though. i know it's hard given their jobs are on the line, but Labour would be best advised to let Corbyn go through to a GE, now. The alternative scenarios are all worse. Regardless of the hard left's politics there will be enough members on the soft left who would accept a change of direction in face of a clear electoral verdict.
The problem the MPs are creating now is that their rebelliousness just plays into a narrative of breaking the captain's bats before the game.
But running through to an election requires Labour getting hammered, if it is to learn any lessons. Meantime, the folks who don't give a shiny shit about learning lessons have four years of stacking the deck to make sure anybody who takes over from Corbyn is in His mould...
But fear not, Labour moderates, for here comes Angela Eagle to save the....
Oh... Ugh.... *winces* That's not.... *turns head away from the grisly spectacle...*
Might be value in Hammond. He's the likely gainer if May stumbles over Brexit. Jarvis also might be the next Labour leader and it's conceivable although not hugely probable May could be there in nine years to be beaten so 25-1 looks about right.
All of the others are way too short. In particular, Jezza would not be value at anything less than 5,000-1.
Indeed, I would say there's an even chance our next PM isn't even on the list yet.
Interesting to look at the party balance there - in %terms about 50% Labour and 30% Tory.
If May wins in 2020 I would have thought she would hand over before 2025.
So the party colour of the next PM should be a close proxy for who wins the election in 2020. If the Tories win, the next PM is the Tory takes over from May. If Labour wins, it's their leader.
Except for the chance of May being replaced before 2020 - small but not negligible, I guess, if either her performance or Brexit turns very bad. Which should put the Tory total % in the next PM betting above the likelihood of the Tories winning in 2020.
Yet the Tories are clear favourites for 2020!
So either the betting market thinks May will stick around to fight two elections but only win the first. Or that she'll last long enough to hand over to some as yet unknown Tory (quite likely, but it still makes the labour odds way too short). Or there is value in backing all the Tories given that their collective odds are so long?
Despite his mandate Corbyn has yet to be tested in a national election.
He was leader at the time of the (national) local elections.
Worst performance ever.
Doesnt really count, though. i know it's hard given their jobs are on the line, but Labour would be best advised to let Corbyn go through to a GE, now. The alternative scenarios are all worse. Regardless of the hard left's politics there will be enough members on the soft left who would accept a change of direction in face of a clear electoral verdict.
The problem the MPs are creating now is that their rebelliousness just plays into a narrative of breaking the captain's bats before the game.
But running through to an election requires Labour getting hammered, if it is to learn any lessons. Meantime, the folks who don't give a shiny shit about learning lessons have four years of stacking the deck to make sure anybody who takes over from Corbyn is in His mould...
But fear not, Labour moderates, for here comes Angela Eagle to save the....
Oh... Ugh.... *winces* That's not.... *turns head away from the grisly spectacle...*
Allowing a useless leader would also lose Labour more MPs - look at the enormous task Cameron faced to just get back in the game post Major.
I still cant understand what corbyn expects to do if, as seems likely, he wins again. Months of mandatory reselections? Hardly taking the fight to the Tories.
If May plays her cards right...
It is about reshaping labour party forever....and eating noodles.
The overwhelming impression I have of Corbyn is that he's much more concerned about citizens of other countries. Be it the plight of Yemeni sex slaves or Bolivian toad farmers.
I like corbyn and his ideals. Hes exactly the sort of backbencher the labour party should have.
Despite his mandate Corbyn has yet to be tested in a national election.
He was leader at the time of the (national) local elections.
Worst performance ever.
Doesnt really count, though. i know it's hard given their jobs are on the line, but Labour would be best advised to let Corbyn go through to a GE, now. The alternative scenarios are all worse. Regardless of the hard left's politics there will be enough members on the soft left who would accept a change of direction in face of a clear electoral verdict.
The problem the MPs are creating now is that their rebelliousness just plays into a narrative of breaking the captain's bats before the game.
They are certainly facing a nasty conflict of loyalty. But none of them are exactly a Howe or a Heseltine.
Labour will get out of this if Corbyn resigns. Since he won't, they're stuffed. Indeed, if he won't go under these circumstances it must be considered doubtful that he would resign for the small matter of losing 80-100 seats at a general election. It's actually possible that he will be there until he dies unless he somehow loses his own seat.
Lots of sore losers among both remainers and anti-Corbyn people in the Labour party.
Oh god look who the judges.....
The people do not like underhand ways to nullify their votes.
The thing is even if they did have to vote in parliament, I would presume the government would whip their side to uphold the public vote.
Exactly. Honestly something like this probably should be done by parliament, and if the courts say legally it has to be, I don't see that it will nullify the referendum. Even most remainer MPs will not go against the referendum result, even though technically they could.
I still cant understand what corbyn expects to do if, as seems likely, he wins again. Months of mandatory reselections? Hardly taking the fight to the Tories.
If May plays her cards right...
It is about reshaping labour party forever....and eating noodles.
The overwhelming impression I have of Corbyn is that he's much more concerned about citizens of other countries. Be it the plight of Yemeni sex slaves or Bolivian toad farmers.
I like corbyn and his ideals. Hes exactly the sort of backbencher the labour party should have.
He's Joynson-Hicks without the intelligence or the work ethic.
There is brand loyalty and it will persist for a little longer. But Jezza could be a disaster - the disappointment will be epic.
I gather from some anecdotes floating around that many Jezza supporters really believe utterly that he will win the next election. Mind you after the year we've had so far, maybe they are right and us old election watching cynics with our constituency redrawn boundary maps are wrong!!!
I had lunch with an old friend of mine on Saturday, a fully paid up member of the chatterati, a film director and artist. Politics came up and he said he thought the mainstream media were a joke because they were making highly personal and false remarks about Corbyn, and not explaining why he was so popular in the country.
The problem is that such people almost only ever talk to each other about politics and all read the same blogs and newspapers, so they don't get how out of touch they are. Look at our resident pro-Stalin, pro-Chavez loon who defines himself as 'middle of the road Labour'. So naturally they believe Corbyn is wildly popular because all the people they speak to love him.
Incidentally, my friend dismissed the local election results because they were from a 'high base' and said that the by-elections all showed a strong swing to Labour. When I pointed out they were all in safe Labour seats and the local election results were worse than those of Hague or Duncan Smith, he just smiled and said 'we'll see.'
It's the Labour voters I feel sorry for. Which party do they vote for now - if at all?
Yes, I can confirm those anecdotes 100%. Delusional groupthink laced with increasingly strong shots of paranoia (From the few who take note of the polls: "Don't believe the polls - they're a Tory plot").
It would have taken at least a couple of years of increasingly poor local election results for the penny to start to drop which is why late 2018 or even mid 2019 was always the better time for a challenge. The unions in particular would by then have realised that the writing was on the wall and some at least would have been prepared to break ranks.
Hard to tell sometimes after the ejaculatory posts on here when the Ruth Davidson for Second party got within 27 points of the SNP.
Some people are incapable of understanding the concept of a relative success. No doubt you'd think the LDs will have done terribly if they increased their seats to 200 at the next election, on the grounds the liberals had won more in the past, so to call it a success Is crazy. Think of all those non grand slam winners who go on a good run and get yo a final only to be thrashed by serena Williams. Did they not still do very well just to get there?
It isn't a hard concept - getting into even a distant second place was an achievement for the Scottish Tories. That may speak of how low their prospects have been and still are, but it doesn't mean it isn't an achievement.
I still cant understand what corbyn expects to do if, as seems likely, he wins again. Months of mandatory reselections? Hardly taking the fight to the Tories.
If May plays her cards right...
It is about reshaping labour party forever....and eating noodles.
The overwhelming impression I have of Corbyn is that he's much more concerned about citizens of other countries. Be it the plight of Yemeni sex slaves or Bolivian toad farmers.
I like corbyn and his ideals. Hes exactly the sort of backbencher the labour party should have.
He's Joynson-Hicks without the intelligence or the work ethic.
Rather than adapt his view of politics to the modern UK, he simply finds it easier to go looking for parts of the world where it still applies.
Hard to tell sometimes after the ejaculatory posts on here when the Ruth Davidson for Second party got within 27 points of the SNP.
Some people are incapable of understanding the concept of a relative success. No doubt you'd think the LDs will have done terribly if they increased their seats to 200 at the next election, on the grounds the liberals had won more in the past, so to call it a success Is crazy. Think of all those non grand slam winners who go on a good run and get yo a final only to be thrashed by serena Williams. Did they not still do very well just to get there?
It isn't a hard concept - getting into even a distant second place was an achievement for the Scottish Tories. That may speak of how low their prospects have been and still are, but it doesn't mean it isn't an achievement.
Thanks yet again for the homily.
After their 'relative success' there were people on here predicting Ruth Davidson-led SCons could be the governing party at the next Holyrood election. They're f*cking delusional.
Some people are incapable of understanding the concept of a relative success.
I think, to quote Jimmy Carter's famous spin on the attempt to rescue the Tehran embassy staff, Labour's performance under Corbyn is an incomplete success.
(I know you were making a different point by the way.)
In May, a man reportedly shouting "Allahu akbar" killed a man and wounded three others in a knife attack at a railway station near the German city of Munich.
I have say I don't remember hearing about this at the time. Apparently he was just a nutter, not an Islamic extremist nutter.
I still cant understand what corbyn expects to do if, as seems likely, he wins again. Months of mandatory reselections? Hardly taking the fight to the Tories.
...
That can wait. If he wins the party is his, either the MPs split which they seem incapable of contemplating, they fall into line knowing there's no point fighting, or they keep causing trouble which means he has even more justification to reshape the party as he would like.
There's 4 years to the next GE, unless may changes her mind. Corbyn has time for internal bloodletting. He may even choose to stand down once it is done just to rub it in.
The commission are trying to serve Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the UK, acting in bad faith, which would suspend our voting rights as a member of the EU. Trouble is that other countries with restless legs are unwilling to set any kind of precedent so they have few takers. They'd need 23 out of 28 countries to utilise it, none of the Eastern bloc are up for it, Germany and the Netherlands aren't up for it and the Scandinavian countries aren't up for it which leave France, Belgium and Luxembourg plus possibly Southern Europe, though with the Italian bank fiasco unfolding and the deficit sanctions being imposed on Spain and Portugal it seems unlikely that any of them would be up for a commission led stitch up.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
In May, a man reportedly shouting "Allahu akbar" killed a man and wounded three others in a knife attack at a railway station near the German city of Munich.
I have say I don't remember hearing about this at the time. Apparently he was just a nutter, not an Islamic extremist nutter.
I don't recall that either. The soldier who stopped another one in France was a hero of the first order. IIRC He got the Legion d'Honneur within about 24hrs. We should learn something from that.
Lots of lone wolves who aren't motivated by Islam at all seem terribly popular.
Why are Labour MPs much more anti-Corbyn than the members?
I would suggest the answer is that they have met him, worked with him and listened to him carefully, so can see the spin he puts out for party members about his honesty, decency and principled nature for what it is.
I've only met him once - and he's just like he is on the TV. Worthy, dresses like a tired geography teacher, dull and likes to expound at great length about his personal hobby horses. He enjoys holding court.
Hmm. Vintage beermat collector let out of his shed for an hour by his wife for a pint of shandy.
The commission are trying to serve Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the UK, acting in bad faith, which would suspend our voting rights as a member of the EU. Trouble is that other countries with restless legs are unwilling to set any kind of precedent so they have few takers. They'd need 23 out of 28 countries to utilise it, none of the Eastern bloc are up for it, Germany and the Netherlands aren't up for it and the Scandinavian countries aren't up for it which leave France, Belgium and Luxembourg plus possibly Southern Europe, though with the Italian bank fiasco unfolding and the deficit sanctions being imposed on Spain and Portugal it seems unlikely that any of them would be up for a commission led stitch up.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
Hard to tell sometimes after the ejaculatory posts on here when the Ruth Davidson for Second party got within 27 points of the SNP.
Some people are incapable of understanding the concept of a relative success. No doubt you'd think the LDs will have done terribly if they increased their seats to 200 at the next election, on the grounds the liberals had won more in the past, so to call it a success Is crazy. Think of all those non grand slam winners who go on a good run and get yo a final only to be thrashed by serena Williams. Did they not still do very well just to get there?
It isn't a hard concept - getting into even a distant second place was an achievement for the Scottish Tories. That may speak of how low their prospects have been and still are, but it doesn't mean it isn't an achievement.
Thanks yet again for the homily.
After their 'relative success' there were people on here predicting Ruth Davidson-led SCons could be the governing party at the next Holyrood election. They're f*cking delusional.
Anyone saying that would be delusional. That is not who you constantly mock with your own criticism, you quite clearly apply it broadly to as many as possible. Quite frankly that undermines any relevant point you make about the still limited propsects of the Scottish Tories, because you paint everyone else as being absurd, even when they are not.
So yes, I did a homily. So what? The implication, the intentional implication, was unreasonable. As someone Who frequently has to remind unionists the nationalist cause is not dead for a generation I'm comfortable even if I wrong, I'm not being smugly unreasonable. At worst just smug.
Why are Labour MPs much more anti-Corbyn than the members?
I would suggest the answer is that they have met him, worked with him and listened to him carefully, so can see the spin he puts out for party members about his honesty, decency and principled nature for what it is.
Counter-argument would be that most of them were selected during the Blairite era after the moderates had wrested back control of the party, its rules and power structures, from the left during Kinnock's time.
More lays on that list than a SeanT winter break to Bangkok.
Ugh. TMI, Mr Royale, TMI.
Mind you I was the one who said in some exasperation tot he deputy head when the blasted staff room photocopier broke down and said it required service yet again 'it's been serviced more often than a ewe in season.'
Technically this was inaccurate and I should have said, 'ram,' but he is a townie and didn't know that.
If I was an ordinary Labour member, especially one who’d been around for a while I’d be puzzled. Over the years I’ve worked to elect Labour MP’s and indeed a Labour Government, which, apart from one very bad big thing (Iraq) did a lot of good things. Now we’ve got a leader who has, I know, been part of the Leftie wing, but who got quite a lot of support from my vintage and a great deal from enthusiastic new brothers and sisters. Not really keen on his views on Trident, and the monarchy, but there are a lot of hangers on round that and there aren’t enough questions asked. But unless you elect me, the party’s not going to totally agree with all my views.
So why are his Parliamentary colleagues so dead against him?
Corbyn's politics aren't the biggest problem though, it's his priorities and his competence. He has been a very ineffectual LOTO, far worse than Ed Miliband. He hasn't actually expressed any concrete ideas on what he wants to do, it's all just vague causes. He focuses on issues that won't win votes, like Trident. This isn't about 'being electable' - if he presented a coherent left wing economic program it would fine.
the anti-Corbynites are also almost equally to blame however, as they have undermined him since day 1 (Blairite or old Labour types particularly). It is now impossible for Corbyn to do his job because of this, so as long as he is leader they won't be taken seriously.
If the Labour party wanted to actually unify, they should have come to an agreement where Corbyn stands down to be replaced on the ballot by a Corbynista candidate (McDonnell or Lewis), who would win the membership vote. At that point, Blairites would need to suck it up and get behind McDonnell, help him be a serious LOTO, and have his platform fairly tested at a GE (they would probably lose but it's not certain, and better than with Corbyn at the helm).
Basically, Corbyn is useless at the job, but Blairites have made it impossible for him to perform it at all now. a unity solution was possible with a non-Corbyn Corbynista, a chance to wipe the slate clean, fight the GE on a left-wing platform and either win or lose fairly. That chance is gone now, and the Labour party is seriously wounded, maybe fatally. Omnishambles doesn't cover the half of it!
What is needed is ex-member after ex-member of the shadow cabinet standing up and explaining why their job was impossible with Corbyn as leader. How they were undermined, how Corbyn simply would not speak to them, how policy was changed in an incoherent way, how he is clearly and obviously not up to the job and how it is simply inconceivable that Labour could go into a general election presenting him as a possible PM.
This process has already started and the complete chaos of Labour over the last year indicates that there is plenty more to come. Will it be enough? Who knows. But this is all about Corbyn and the spotlight needs to be on him from the start in a way it never was the last time.
Whilst I agree with that - it's a pointless exercise if they can't drum up a half credible alternative out of the rest and a reason to vote for them bar I'm Not Jezza.
I can't get over what crappily executed coup/challenge this is. It fails on almost every level. A couple of days ago we were wondering if Erdogan had planned his own to grab more power. If Jeremy wins the leadership ballot, we could be forgiven for wondering the same
Morning all,
I wonder if it seems crap because fundamentally it is stage one of an ongoing process. No one really credible to the wider electorate with serious ambitions is clearly ready to run and lose against Jezza. They are holding back.
Yes, but the crucial question is 'for what?'. Are they expecting Corbyn to fall on his sword at some point in the next three years? Are they looking to form a new party, where they won't individually be seen as a bad loser? Do they feel that they might themselves be able to challenge later in the parliament? Or is it simply that they don't know and hope that something will turn up before they need to take a positive decision?
Possibly this:
George Eaton @georgeeaton 9h9 hours ago Rather than splitting, Labour MPs hope to significantly narrow Corbyn's victory and challenge him again. Poll suggests they'll struggle.
I had heard that the MPs are so desperate that they are thinking of using the rules to challenge him over and over (whoever wrote the rules didn't foresee this, either). Keep it going for months until they get the result they want.
I do wonder whether they have thought this through?
/edit actually I don't, since the answer is obvious.
i don't think the rules do provide for that? I thought that nominations could only be submitted in the period leading up to Conference?
If I was an ordinary Labour member, especially one who’d been around for a while I’d be puzzled. Over the years I’ve worked to elect Labour MP’s and indeed a Labour Government, which, apart from one very bad big thing (Iraq) did a lot of good things. Now we’ve got a leader who has, I know, been part of the Leftie wing, but who got quite a lot of support from my vintage and a great deal from enthusiastic new brothers and sisters. Not really keen on his views on Trident, and the monarchy, but there are a lot of hangers on round that and there aren’t enough questions asked. But unless you elect me, the party’s not going to totally agree with all my views.
So why are his Parliamentary colleagues so dead against him?
Corbyn's politics aren't the biggest problem though, it's his priorities and his competence. He has been a very ineffectual LOTO, far worse than Ed Miliband. He hasn't actually expressed any concrete ideas on what he wants to do, it's all just vague causes. He focuses on issues that won't win votes, like Trident. This isn't about 'being electable' - if he presented a coherent left wing economic program it would fine.
the anti-Corbynites are also almost equally to blame however, as they have undermined him since day 1 (Blairite or old Labour types particularly). It is now impossible for Corbyn to do his job because of this, so as long as he is leader they won't be taken seriously.
If the Labour party wanted to actually unify, they should have come to an agreement where Corbyn stands down to be replaced on the ballot by a Corbynista candidate (McDonnell or Lewis), who would win the membership vote. At that point, Blairites would need to suck it up and get behind McDonnell, help him be a serious LOTO, and have his platform fairly tested at a GE (they would probably lose but it's not certain, and better than with Corbyn at the helm).
Basically, Corbyn is useless at the job, but Blairites have made it impossible for him to perform it at all now. a unity solution was possible with a non-Corbyn Corbynista, a chance to wipe the slate clean, fight the GE on a left-wing platform and either win or lose fairly. That chance is gone now, and the Labour party is seriously wounded, maybe fatally. Omnishambles doesn't cover the half of it!
If I was an ordinary Labour member, especially one who’d been around for a while I’d be puzzled. Over the years I’ve worked to elect Labour MP’s and indeed a Labour Government, which, apart from one very bad big thing (Iraq) did a lot of good things. Now we’ve got a leader who has, I know, been part of the Leftie wing, but who got quite a lot of support from my vintage and a great deal from enthusiastic new brothers and sisters. Not really keen on his views on Trident, and the monarchy, but there are a lot of hangers on round that and there aren’t enough questions asked. But unless you elect me, the party’s not going to totally agree with all my views.
So why are his Parliamentary colleagues so dead against him?
Corbyn's politics aren't the biggest problem though, it's his priorities and his competence. He has been a very ineffectual LOTO, far worse than Ed Miliband. He hasn't actually expressed any concrete ideas on what he wants to do, it's all just vague causes. He focuses on issues that won't win votes, like Trident. This isn't about 'being electable' - if he presented a coherent left wing economic program it would fine.
the anti-Corbynites are also almost equally to blame however, as they have undermined him since day 1 (Blairite or old Labour types particularly). It is now impossible for Corbyn to do his job because of this, so as long as he is leader they won't be taken seriously.
If the Labour party wanted to actually unify, they should have come to an agreement where Corbyn stands down to be replaced on the ballot by a Corbynista candidate (McDonnell or Lewis), who would win the membership vote. At that point, Blairites would need to suck it up and get behind McDonnell, help him be a serious LOTO, and have his platform fairly tested at a GE (they would probably lose but it's not certain, and better than with Corbyn at the helm).
Basically, Corbyn is useless at the job, but Blairites have made it impossible for him to perform it at all now. a unity solution was possible with a non-Corbyn Corbynista, a chance to wipe the slate clean, fight the GE on a left-wing platform and either win or lose fairly. That chance is gone now, and the Labour party is seriously wounded, maybe fatally. Omnishambles doesn't cover the half of it!
In a civil war it is unusual for people to "want to actually unify", though? Not, at least, until there are a lot of dead from both sides lying all around.
What is needed is ex-member after ex-member of the shadow cabinet standing up and explaining why their job was impossible with Corbyn as leader. How they were undermined, how Corbyn simply would not speak to them, how policy was changed in an incoherent way, how he is clearly and obviously not up to the job and how it is simply inconceivable that Labour could go into a general election presenting him as a possible PM.
This process has already started and the complete chaos of Labour over the last year indicates that there is plenty more to come. Will it be enough? Who knows. But this is all about Corbyn and the spotlight needs to be on him from the start in a way it never was the last time.
Whilst I agree with that - it's a pointless exercise if they can't drum up a half credible alternative out of the rest and a reason to vote for them bar I'm Not Jezza.
I can't get over what crappily executed coup/challenge this is. It fails on almost every level. A couple of days ago we were wondering if Erdogan had planned his own to grab more power. If Jeremy wins the leadership ballot, we could be forgiven for wondering the same
Morning all,
I wonder if it seems crap because fundamentally it is stage one of an ongoing process. No one really credible to the wider electorate with serious ambitions is clearly ready to run and lose against Jezza. They are holding back.
Yes, but the crucial question is 'for what?'. Are they expecting Corbyn to fall on his sword at some point in the next three years? Are they looking to form a new party, where they won't individually be seen as a bad loser? Do they feel that they might themselves be able to challenge later in the parliament? Or is it simply that they don't know and hope that something will turn up before they need to take a positive decision?
Possibly this:
George Eaton @georgeeaton 9h9 hours ago Rather than splitting, Labour MPs hope to significantly narrow Corbyn's victory and challenge him again. Poll suggests they'll struggle.
Sounds like a WWI strategy of keep throwing men over the top and one day it might work!!
It did work, eventually - albeit at the price of impoverishing the continent and ending its global preeminence.
If I was an ordinary Labour member, especially one who’d been around for a while I’d be puzzled. Over the years I’ve worked to elect Labour MP’s and indeed a Labour Government, which, apart from one very bad big thing (Iraq) did a lot of good things. Now we’ve got a leader who has, I know, been part of the Leftie wing, but who got quite a lot of support from my vintage and a great deal from enthusiastic new brothers and sisters. Not really keen on his views on Trident, and the monarchy, but there are a lot of hangers on round that and there aren’t enough questions asked. But unless you elect me, the party’s not going to totally agree with all my views.
So why are his Parliamentary colleagues so dead against him?
My word OKC .... the most basic political reason of all for a major party - Corbyn is a dead cert loser.
That’s precisely my point Mr W; why? Seems like a nice enough guy, not charismatic maybe, but, as Churchill famously said, more or less, neither was Attlee! What is does seem to me though is that while Attlee was an excellent Chair of meetings, and man-manager, and could therefore control to big beasts around him, Corbyn is neither and therefore can’t. Although his big beasts are nowhere the size of Bevin, Bevan, Cripps and Morrison etc.
What happens after Corbyn's victory in September is a move to consolidate the hard left's power in the party, with mandatory reselection of MPs becoming policy and the NEC becoming even more accommodating to Corbyn.
It's worth repeating time and again: the hard left has absolutely no interest whatsoever in Parliamentary democracy. The path to true socialism is via the streets and mass protest turning into uprising.
If in a head to head with a single challenger, the leader of the Labour Party is unable to win by a margin of more than lets say 60% to 40%, despite all the underlying loyalty that any sitting party leader could normally command from party members, that is hardly a ringing endorsement though.
That 60% support will be coming from well beyond the hard left alone. Over a long period of a couple of years at least, Labour will suffer electoral losses accompanied by poor polling, such that the penny will finally drop for some of Corbyn's supporters that he is after all a total electoral liability and that the party cannot go on like this. However, other members who are Corbyn opponents will leave in despair. The question is whether the former happens faster than the latter, and whether the party can hold together in the meantime. If the split is for now confined to the PLP declaring independence and electing a separate leader who will be LOTO, there is still a chance of that. If we see the formal creation of a fully fledged breakaway party, then it will be too late.
Bercow's already ruled on that, hasn't he? The LotO is the leader of the Labour Party while the Labour party has second-most MPs, irrespective of how rebellious they are. That stays unless there are enough formal defections / splits / resignations / expulsions to move some other party into second.
Bercow has only ruled on that in the context of the current PLP rules, but they can change. That's what I meant about "declaring independence" - the PLP changing its rules so to elect a separate leader and shadow ministerial posts and for MPs to confirm that they are part of the PLP. As the PLP is legally independent of the Labour Party it cannot be prevented from setting new rules and standing order - all that the NEC can do is fail to endorse them. Once that happens, and the PLP carries on regardless we're then in uncharted waters because (not surprisingly) the Labour rule book never envisaged such a scenario.
Is that not the MacDonald scenario, with the likely same conclusion?
The commission are trying to serve Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the UK, acting in bad faith, which would suspend our voting rights as a member of the EU. Trouble is that other countries with restless legs are unwilling to set any kind of precedent so they have few takers. They'd need 23 out of 28 countries to utilise it, none of the Eastern bloc are up for it, Germany and the Netherlands aren't up for it and the Scandinavian countries aren't up for it which leave France, Belgium and Luxembourg plus possibly Southern Europe, though with the Italian bank fiasco unfolding and the deficit sanctions being imposed on Spain and Portugal it seems unlikely that any of them would be up for a commission led stitch up.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
"The plebs revolt" - 2016
Surely the reason the commission doesn’t know how to respond is that no-one really thought anyone would be daft enough to want to leave the EU
Of the many well connected posters on pb.com, have we any who know what might happen in "moderate" Labour if Corbyn wins again?
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
The commission are trying to serve Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the UK, acting in bad faith, which would suspend our voting rights as a member of the EU. Trouble is that other countries with restless legs are unwilling to set any kind of precedent so they have few takers. They'd need 23 out of 28 countries to utilise it, none of the Eastern bloc are up for it, Germany and the Netherlands aren't up for it and the Scandinavian countries aren't up for it which leave France, Belgium and Luxembourg plus possibly Southern Europe, though with the Italian bank fiasco unfolding and the deficit sanctions being imposed on Spain and Portugal it seems unlikely that any of them would be up for a commission led stitch up.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
"The plebs revolt" - 2016
Surely the reason the commission doesn’t know how to respond is that no-one really thought anyone would be daft enough to want to leave the EU
If I was an ordinary Labour member, especially one who’d been around for a while I’d be puzzled. Over the years I’ve worked to elect Labour MP’s and indeed a Labour Government, which, apart from one very bad big thing (Iraq) did a lot of good things. Now we’ve got a leader who has, I know, been part of the Leftie wing, but who got quite a lot of support from my vintage and a great deal from enthusiastic new brothers and sisters. Not really keen on his views on Trident, and the monarchy, but there are a lot of hangers on round that and there aren’t enough questions asked. But unless you elect me, the party’s not going to totally agree with all my views.
So why are his Parliamentary colleagues so dead against him?
Corbyn's politics aren't the biggest problem though, it's his priorities and his competence. He has been a very ineffectual LOTO, far worse than Ed Miliband. He hasn't actually expressed any concrete ideas on what he wants to do, it's all just vague causes. He focuses on issues that won't win votes, like Trident. This isn't about 'being electable' - if he presented a coherent left wing economic program it would fine.
the anti-Corbynites are also almost equally to blame however, as they have undermined him since day 1 (Blairite or old Labour types particularly). It is now impossible for Corbyn to do his job because of this, so as long as he is leader they won't be taken seriously.
If the Labour party wanted to actually unify, they should have come to an agreement where Corbyn stands down to be replaced on the ballot by a Corbynista candidate (McDonnell or Lewis), who would win the membership vote. At that point, Blairites would need to suck it up and get behind McDonnell, help him be a serious LOTO, and have his platform fairly tested at a GE (they would probably lose but it's not certain, and better than with Corbyn at the helm).
Basically, Corbyn is useless at the job, but Blairites have made it impossible for him to perform it at all now. a unity solution was possible with a non-Corbyn Corbynista, a chance to wipe the slate clean, fight the GE on a left-wing platform and either win or lose fairly. That chance is gone now, and the Labour party is seriously wounded, maybe fatally. Omnishambles doesn't cover the half of it!
I'd argue that EdM mounted tactical offensives against HMG and when let loose he talked meaningless academic jargon. There wasn't any coherent policy at all even years after his elevation. He also had the massive drag of his own personal credibility deficit.
Mr. C, not well-connected, but I am procrastinating, so my answer is they pick one of the following: 1) They split, like the SDP on steroids, and New Labour becomes the Opposition. 2) They put on gimp suits and acknowledge Chairman Corbyn as their master. 3) They have another leadership contest and keep doing that until he resigns.
The commission are trying to serve Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the UK, acting in bad faith, which would suspend our voting rights as a member of the EU. Trouble is that other countries with restless legs are unwilling to set any kind of precedent so they have few takers. They'd need 23 out of 28 countries to utilise it, none of the Eastern bloc are up for it, Germany and the Netherlands aren't up for it and the Scandinavian countries aren't up for it which leave France, Belgium and Luxembourg plus possibly Southern Europe, though with the Italian bank fiasco unfolding and the deficit sanctions being imposed on Spain and Portugal it seems unlikely that any of them would be up for a commission led stitch up.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
"The plebs revolt" - 2016
Surely the reason the commission doesn’t know how to respond is that no-one really thought anyone would be daft enough to want to leave the EU
They got warning. Greece very nearly went.
Though I agree that the Commission is managing this badly, I can see there's a point in someone who's declared intention is to leave a club (once A50 is done) not being able to vote on things affecting its future. The onus should however be on us to be responsible in only voting on things that will have a short-run impact on the UK.
Indeed, I would say there's an even chance our next PM isn't even on the list yet.
I agree - I'd actually have that down as more likely than not (>50%).
Absolutely.
I agree Hammond is the best bet on that list.
Theresa May will (dv) lead the party into the next election.
She would beat Corbyn. Ergo if she loses it will be to Corbyn's replacement, which, quite frankly, could be anyone.
If she wins, she could step down to a Tory after. But that is seven years away! Might as well throw your money in the wind.
It's a stonking market for the bookie. Jeremy Corbyn is probably the best value of the lot, mind. Not value, bit like a lucky dip lottery ticket over 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
& Hammond for actuarial reasons. Though I don't think 25-1 is a correct price for this.
Floater, always think positively, certainly be tough for sure given the arithmetic
If/when scotland becomes independent it will be interesting to see how the parties there evolve. I assume they would all split from their UK counterparts. Would the SNP begin to fracture once their main goal is achieved?
And we'd need to find a new home for those boats they voted for yesterday.
I would imagine in time they would change significantly , SNP likely to be around for some while though. Take the others a long time to build a real Scottish party and get some talent into it.
If I was an ordinary Labour member, especially one who’d been around for a while I’d be puzzled. Over the years I’ve worked to elect Labour MP’s and indeed a Labour Government, which, apart from one very bad big thing (Iraq) did a lot of good things. Now we’ve got a leader who has, I know, been part of the Leftie wing, but who got quite a lot of support from my vintage and a great deal from enthusiastic new brothers and sisters. Not really keen on his views on Trident, and the monarchy, but there are a lot of hangers on round that and there aren’t enough questions asked. But unless you elect me, the party’s not going to totally agree with all my views.
So why are his Parliamentary colleagues so dead against him?
Corbyn's politics aren't the biggest problem though, it's his priorities and his competence. He has been a very ineffectual LOTO, far worse than Ed Miliband. He hasn't actually expressed any concrete ideas on what he wants to do, it's all just vague causes. He focuses on issues that won't win votes, like Trident. This isn't about 'being electable' - if he presented a coherent left wing economic program it would fine.
the anti-Corbynites are also almost equally to blame however, as they have undermined him since day 1 (Blairite or old Labour types particularly). It is now impossible for Corbyn to do his job because of this, so as long as he is leader they won't be taken seriously.
If the Labour party wanted to actually unify, they should have come to an agreement where Corbyn stands down to be replaced on the ballot by a Corbynista candidate (McDonnell or Lewis), who would win the membership vote. At that point, Blairites would need to suck it up and get behind McDonnell, help him be a serious LOTO, and have his platform fairly tested at a GE (they would probably lose but it's not certain, and better than with Corbyn at the helm).
Basically, Corbyn is useless at the job, but Blairites have made it impossible for him to perform it at all now. a unity solution was possible with a non-Corbyn Corbynista, a chance to wipe the slate clean, fight the GE on a left-wing platform and either win or lose fairly. That chance is gone now, and the Labour party is seriously wounded, maybe fatally. Omnishambles doesn't cover the half of it!
Surely you mean give up a bus fare. One of the most EPIC comments ever on PB.
I'm trying to recall the detail of Ash's argument - it was the hypothetical bus fare between Merthyr and Cardiff, for a job intv organised by the Job Centre - that he couldn't attend because he'd spent the last of his JSA on toothpaste and therefore it was unfair to sanction him for not turning up. Or something.
Hard to tell sometimes after the ejaculatory posts on here when the Ruth Davidson for Second party got within 27 points of the SNP.
Some people are incapable of understanding the concept of a relative success. No doubt you'd think the LDs will have done terribly if they increased their seats to 200 at the next election, on the grounds the liberals had won more in the past, so to call it a success Is crazy. Think of all those non grand slam winners who go on a good run and get yo a final only to be thrashed by serena Williams. Did they not still do very well just to get there?
It isn't a hard concept - getting into even a distant second place was an achievement for the Scottish Tories. That may speak of how low their prospects have been and still are, but it doesn't mean it isn't an achievement.
They set themselves such low bars, how can they fail. Point is KLE , they are useless and going nowhere.
No one seems bothered by the EU saying to Turkey what they can or cannot do with judicial rules. I may be the odd one out, but it makes me uneasy. I'm against the death penalty and have always been so, but surely this is a decision for that country. Where does trade come into it?
Yes, we as a country can decide not to trade with another country - that is our right. But that is up to our elected government, not an unelected clique in Brussels. It may seem a small point but it's not. If Juncker decides that voting in a Labour government is not allowed, would we accept it? Even I would vote for Corbyn under those circumstances.
In 1975, this sort of EU oversight would have been dismissed as a conspiracy theory. We're leaving just in time.
I don't mind EU membership rules preventing death penalty sentences - it's part of the club entry rules and very easy to define. What I do object to is the EU's desire to sanction rightwing parties/policies that they don't like. Poland has already been instructed, Austria if it elects Hofer is another.
I agree - democratically elected leaders like Hofer (if he was to be elected!) should not be sanctioned just on the basis of their party. If Hofer begins enacting policies that go against the rules of membership (like reintroducing the death penalty for example) then it is right to sanction/expel etc.
The death penalty however is a rule of entry, and the EU is under no legal obligation to trade with anyone. If they don't want to trade with country X because of Y then that is their choice, and member states will need to decide if that is a price worth paying to be a member of the club.
Miss Plato, it was a hallowed time, a forgotten age of innocence when Labour looked like they could win General Elections and we hadn't had a referendum in four decades. Now we've had three in the last couple, with another on the horizon.
Edited extra bit: should clarify, for Labour I meant an outright win. There were, of course, many who thought a Lab-SNP coalition could've happened in 2015.
Of the many well connected posters on pb.com, have we any who know what might happen in "moderate" Labour if Corbyn wins again?
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
I am only well connected insofar as I know my local labour MP and a bunch of his councillors fairly well. I think he both sees their position as impossible and is labour through and through. He knows the history and would only split if everything else had failed. Both left and right see the party as "theirs" and the others as cuckoos who need to be ejected, or at least forced to keep quiet in the nest, there's a huge sense of ownership and personal investment in the party, hence the problem.
The same could be said of the 1980s, of course. But then the rebellion was being led by some big figures in politics, who had risen almost to the top. I think at that level you get accustomed to seeing yourself as more important than the party, rightly or wrongly, and that if you did jump you would carry people with you (as indeed was the case).
The current batch of MP rebels are all juniors with few followers.
No one seems bothered by the EU saying to Turkey what they can or cannot do with judicial rules. I may be the odd one out, but it makes me uneasy. I'm against the death penalty and have always been so, but surely this is a decision for that country. Where does trade come into it?
Yes, we as a country can decide not to trade with another country - that is our right. But that is up to our elected government, not an unelected clique in Brussels. It may seem a small point but it's not. If Juncker decides that voting in a Labour government is not allowed, would we accept it? Even I would vote for Corbyn under those circumstances.
In 1975, this sort of EU oversight would have been dismissed as a conspiracy theory. We're leaving just in time.
I don't mind EU membership rules preventing death penalty sentences - it's part of the club entry rules and very easy to define. What I do object to is the EU's desire to sanction rightwing parties/policies that they don't like. Poland has already been instructed, Austria if it elects Hofer is another.
I agree - democratically elected leaders like Hofer (if he was to be elected!) should not be sanctioned just on the basis of their party. If Hofer begins enacting policies that go against the rules of membership (like reintroducing the death penalty for example) then it is right to sanction/expel etc.
The death penalty however is a rule of entry, and the EU is under no legal obligation to trade with anyone. If they don't want to trade with country X because of Y then that is their choice, and member states will need to decide if that is a price worth paying to be a member of the club.
I don't really mind the EU's policy itself, it just requires EU members to "grow in" to their positions. The supreme confidence the EU has in harmonising the economic and political will of members states has proven misplaced, and highlighted the difficulty a member state has in what the EU sees as "going backwards".
Surely you mean give up a bus fare. One of the most EPIC comments ever on PB.
I'm trying to recall the detail of Ash's argument - it was the hypothetical bus fare between Merthyr and Cardiff, for a job intv organised by the Job Centre - that he couldn't attend because he'd spent the last of his JSA on toothpaste and therefore it was unfair to sanction him for not turning up. Or something.
It went on and on and on
Indeed along those lines. It all sort of all fell apart when someone asked how he managed to pay to be on Internet and he finally admitted he had Sky broadband with the multiple movie plus package or something
Miss Plato, it was a hallowed time, a forgotten age of innocence when Labour looked like they could win General Elections and we hadn't had a referendum in four decades. Now we've had three in the last couple, with another on the horizon.
Edited extra bit: should clarify, for Labour I meant an outright win. There were, of course, many who thought a Lab-SNP coalition could've happened in 2015.
I can't believe how long many of us have hung around on PB - and we're newbies compared to the original posters.
Miss Plato, it was a good year, when someone modesty prevents me from naming tipped Button to win the title at 70/1, before the F1 season even kicked off.
[On that note, Ladbrokes have made me look a numpty by not putting up their Hungarian markets yet, as I said they would...]
If I was an ordinary Labour member, especially one who’d been around for a while I’d be puzzled. Over the years I’ve worked to elect Labour MP’s and indeed a Labour Government, which, apart from one very bad big thing (Iraq) did a lot of good things. Now we’ve got a leader who has, I know, been part of the Leftie wing, but who got quite a lot of support from my vintage and a great deal from enthusiastic new brothers and sisters. Not really keen on his views on Trident, and the monarchy, but there are a lot of hangers on round that and there aren’t enough questions asked. But unless you elect me, the party’s not going to totally agree with all my views.
So why are his Parliamentary colleagues so dead against him?
1. They can read the polls and it's their seats on the line. 2. Indeed, the battle isn't necessarily just 2020; Labour could face such a crushing defeat under him that it will take two, three or more elections to come back from. 3. They went into Westminster to make a difference, not to stage some glorified sit-in. 4. Corbyn is not only a useless leader but is not even interested in leading, merely persuading/opposing as an individual. 5. The longer he stays in office, the more damage he does to: i. Labour's campaigning structure - its national office and the like. ii. Its membership base, alienating moderates and letting in infiltrators. iii. The Labour brand. 6. He has already - in their view - been perhaps the difference between Brexit and Bremain: that's a massive defeat not only on his watch but arguably with his connivance. 7. The Tories have clearly got their act together. EURef split the party and the practicalities might cause ongoing fissures but the leadership contest demonstrated a very real ability to keep those divisions within workable limits. That has to be worrying for Labour. 8. Without looking relevant at Westminster, how can Labour aim to win the Scottish seats back, short of hoping for an SNP collapse based on some black swan event? 9. The media don't take him seriously, and never will. 10. Even if they actually did support him, originally or as an individual, the game's gone too far. After being no-confidenced by 4:1, that division can never be healed so one side must decisively win if Labour is to ever offer credible opposition again.
F1: rain possible for the race. Safety car may be possible after all (especially if it's wet at the start, they'll have half a dozen bed-wetting laps trundling around after it).
In better news, Twitter reports Brawn is a target for Ferrari.
But in what role? He had the best career as a team owner (one season, took both titles), guided Mercedes to its current success and was technical chief, I think, during Schumacher's reign at Ferrari.
The commission are trying to serve Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the UK, acting in bad faith, which would suspend our voting rights as a member of the EU. Trouble is that other countries with restless legs are unwilling to set any kind of precedent so they have few takers. They'd need 23 out of 28 countries to utilise it, none of the Eastern bloc are up for it, Germany and the Netherlands aren't up for it and the Scandinavian countries aren't up for it which leave France, Belgium and Luxembourg plus possibly Southern Europe, though with the Italian bank fiasco unfolding and the deficit sanctions being imposed on Spain and Portugal it seems unlikely that any of them would be up for a commission led stitch up.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
"The plebs revolt" - 2016
Surely the reason the commission doesn’t know how to respond is that no-one really thought anyone would be daft enough to want to leave the EU
They got warning. Greece very nearly went.
Though I agree that the Commission is managing this badly, I can see there's a point in someone who's declared intention is to leave a club (once A50 is done) not being able to vote on things affecting its future. The onus should however be on us to be responsible in only voting on things that will have a short-run impact on the UK.
The EC can see their delusions of grandeur fading like a mirage. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Miss Plato, it was a good year, when someone modesty prevents me from naming tipped Button to win the title at 70/1, before the F1 season even kicked off.
[On that note, Ladbrokes have made me look a numpty by not putting up their Hungarian markets yet, as I said they would...]
Cripes - that long ago? I saw something that made me smile a few weeks ago. I think it was a Superbikes GP race - the favourite fell off and a 750/1 won.
The commission are trying to serve Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the UK, acting in bad faith, which would suspend our voting rights as a member of the EU. Trouble is that other countries with restless legs are unwilling to set any kind of precedent so they have few takers. They'd need 23 out of 28 countries to utilise it, none of the Eastern bloc are up for it, Germany and the Netherlands aren't up for it and the Scandinavian countries aren't up for it which leave France, Belgium and Luxembourg plus possibly Southern Europe, though with the Italian bank fiasco unfolding and the deficit sanctions being imposed on Spain and Portugal it seems unlikely that any of them would be up for a commission led stitch up.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
We really have them over a barrel with A50by staying in the EU. Let's keep them over a barrel for the next 50 years.
Miss Plato, aye, first year (well half-year for race weekend tips) I started dipping my toe in the water.
Nice to get a longer one right this year. And I even put a pound or two on it myself.
750/1 would be rather splendid. I do wonder if Leicester City's win meant an economic surge for the city. Lots of fans must've put on a pound or a fiver.
Not a strong FCO to support Boris. Alan Duncan and Tobias Ellwood?
Sheez.
A terrible slur on Rutland's finest. Expect a visit from PB's Andrea to throw down the gauntlet on behalf of Sir Hunky Dinky Dunky.
Oakham is already in a total uproar at your wicked affront and Ayston would be but there's a coffee morning in the Rectory to determine whether to have a magician or conjurer at Farmer White's daughters birthday bash. They'll probably opt for both ....
Totally O/t, but, apart from the chance of making a quick buck at the expense of the public, why does Stansted Airport charge for dropping off a passenger. AFAIK very few other airports do; none of those I use, anyway.
Just like any electorate, they don't like being told they got it wrong and asked to vote again. At least not without a polite interval and some very good reasons.
Miss Plato, aye, first year (well half-year for race weekend tips) I started dipping my toe in the water.
Nice to get a longer one right this year. And I even put a pound or two on it myself.
750/1 would be rather splendid. I do wonder if Leicester City's win meant an economic surge for the city. Lots of fans must've put on a pound or a fiver.
If you can't follow F1 the way you'd like to re TV coverage - superbikes are great fun and on ITV4 IIRC. I'm from the Barry Sheen generation and still watch it occasionally.
"Born in New York City, Ellwood was educated at schools in Bonn and Vienna. He attended Loughborough University from 1985–90, graduating with a BA (Hons) degree, and the Cass Business School at City University from 1997–8, where he received a Master of Business Administration degree (MBA).
After university, Ellwood served in the British Army with the Royal Green Jackets from 1991. He left the Army with the rank of Captain in 1996. After resigning his commission he became a researcher to the Conservative MP Tom King."
Without significant parliamentary experience, but the FCO seems a decent fit?
Miss Plato, unsure of the betting potential. I did once catch a snippet of bike-racing, and rather enjoyed it.
Not sure how I'll respond (in betting terms) once Sky has the lot. I did say at the time (I think) this would be the result of the BBC's Judas Iscariot approach to the licence fee-payer.
Just like any electorate, they don't like being told they got it wrong and asked to vote again. At least not without a polite interval and some very good reasons.
Has there ever been a result bigger than Winchester that says Bugger Off?
That’s precisely my point Mr W; why? Seems like a nice enough guy, not charismatic maybe, but, as Churchill famously said, more or less, neither was Attlee! What is does seem to me though is that while Attlee was an excellent Chair of meetings, and man-manager, and could therefore control to big beasts around him, Corbyn is neither and therefore can’t. Although his big beasts are nowhere the size of Bevin, Bevan, Cripps and Morrison etc.
I'm afraid comparing Attlee to Corbyn is like discussing the relative merits of a fine single malt whisky and skunk piss.
One might sell you soul for the former and condemn yourself to purgatory to avoid the latter.
Comments
If May plays her cards right...
It is about reshaping labour party forever....and eating noodles.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thousands-of-nurses-cheat-in-exams-zzz2kzm77
The two most recent electorally successful PM's would disagree - Thatcher and Blair. Their parties were the embodiment of their beliefs - Thatcherism and New Labour and they both knew their job as leader was to win. Otherwise the party was largely irrelevant.
And we'd need to find a new home for those boats they voted for yesterday.
But fear not, Labour moderates, for here comes Angela Eagle to save the....
Oh... Ugh.... *winces* That's not.... *turns head away from the grisly spectacle...*
If May wins in 2020 I would have thought she would hand over before 2025.
So the party colour of the next PM should be a close proxy for who wins the election in 2020. If the Tories win, the next PM is the Tory takes over from May. If Labour wins, it's their leader.
Except for the chance of May being replaced before 2020 - small but not negligible, I guess, if either her performance or Brexit turns very bad. Which should put the Tory total % in the next PM betting above the likelihood of the Tories winning in 2020.
Yet the Tories are clear favourites for 2020!
So either the betting market thinks May will stick around to fight two elections but only win the first. Or that she'll last long enough to hand over to some as yet unknown Tory (quite likely, but it still makes the labour odds way too short). Or there is value in backing all the Tories given that their collective odds are so long?
Labour will get out of this if Corbyn resigns. Since he won't, they're stuffed. Indeed, if he won't go under these circumstances it must be considered doubtful that he would resign for the small matter of losing 80-100 seats at a general election. It's actually possible that he will be there until he dies unless he somehow loses his own seat.
https://twitter.com/BolsoverBeast/status/755294848157179904
Milky
Just met a man who is giving up heroin for 24hrs to save £25 so he can #votecorbyn and save his future.
It would have taken at least a couple of years of increasingly poor local election results for the penny to start to drop which is why late 2018 or even mid 2019 was always the better time for a challenge. The unions in particular would by then have realised that the writing was on the wall and some at least would have been prepared to break ranks.
It isn't a hard concept - getting into even a distant second place was an achievement for the Scottish Tories. That may speak of how low their prospects have been and still are, but it doesn't mean it isn't an achievement.
One of those in-jokes that never loses it's touch.
As new Cabinet meets, final list: 22 plus 5 attendees. All Govt ministers here https://t.co/eraUv6Qidg https://t.co/HAYXydpkic
After their 'relative success' there were people on here predicting Ruth Davidson-led SCons could be the governing party at the next Holyrood election. They're f*cking delusional.
(I know you were making a different point by the way.)
I have say I don't remember hearing about this at the time. Apparently he was just a nutter, not an Islamic extremist nutter.
There's 4 years to the next GE, unless may changes her mind. Corbyn has time for internal bloodletting. He may even choose to stand down once it is done just to rub it in.
We really have them over a barrel with A50 right now, the commission doesn't know how to respond and the democratically elected leaders are all looking to open up pre-A50 talks on a bilateral or multilateral basis completely bypassing the commission.
Lots of lone wolves who aren't motivated by Islam at all seem terribly popular.
I agree Hammond is the best bet on that list.
So yes, I did a homily. So what? The implication, the intentional implication, was unreasonable. As someone Who frequently has to remind unionists the nationalist cause is not dead for a generation I'm comfortable even if I wrong, I'm not being smugly unreasonable. At worst just smug.
Sheez.
Mind you I was the one who said in some exasperation tot he deputy head when the blasted staff room photocopier broke down and said it required service yet again 'it's been serviced more often than a ewe in season.'
Technically this was inaccurate and I should have said, 'ram,' but he is a townie and didn't know that.
the anti-Corbynites are also almost equally to blame however, as they have undermined him since day 1 (Blairite or old Labour types particularly). It is now impossible for Corbyn to do his job because of this, so as long as he is leader they won't be taken seriously.
If the Labour party wanted to actually unify, they should have come to an agreement where Corbyn stands down to be replaced on the ballot by a Corbynista candidate (McDonnell or Lewis), who would win the membership vote. At that point, Blairites would need to suck it up and get behind McDonnell, help him be a serious LOTO, and have his platform fairly tested at a GE (they would probably lose but it's not certain, and better than with Corbyn at the helm).
Basically, Corbyn is useless at the job, but Blairites have made it impossible for him to perform it at all now. a unity solution was possible with a non-Corbyn Corbynista, a chance to wipe the slate clean, fight the GE on a left-wing platform and either win or lose fairly. That chance is gone now, and the Labour party is seriously wounded, maybe fatally. Omnishambles doesn't cover the half of it!
Mine for Nothing
EU MARKETS WATCHDOG BACKS ALLOWING HEDGE FUNDS FROM UNITED STATES, SINGAPORE, HONG KONG TO OPERATE ACROSS EU
@minefornothing ESMA also gave the green light to hedge funds from Canada, Guernsey, Japan, Cayman Islands, Jersey, Australia, and Swiss
the anti-Corbynites are also almost equally to blame however, as they have undermined him since day 1 (Blairite or old Labour types particularly). It is now impossible for Corbyn to do his job because of this, so as long as he is leader they won't be taken seriously.
If the Labour party wanted to actually unify, they should have come to an agreement where Corbyn stands down to be replaced on the ballot by a Corbynista candidate (McDonnell or Lewis), who would win the membership vote. At that point, Blairites would need to suck it up and get behind McDonnell, help him be a serious LOTO, and have his platform fairly tested at a GE (they would probably lose but it's not certain, and better than with Corbyn at the helm).
Basically, Corbyn is useless at the job, but Blairites have made it impossible for him to perform it at all now. a unity solution was possible with a non-Corbyn Corbynista, a chance to wipe the slate clean, fight the GE on a left-wing platform and either win or lose fairly. That chance is gone now, and the Labour party is seriously wounded, maybe fatally. Omnishambles doesn't cover the half of it!
What is does seem to me though is that while Attlee was an excellent Chair of meetings, and man-manager, and could therefore control to big beasts around him, Corbyn is neither and therefore can’t. Although his big beasts are nowhere the size of Bevin, Bevan, Cripps and Morrison etc.
She would beat Corbyn. Ergo if she loses it will be to Corbyn's replacement, which, quite frankly, could be anyone.
If she wins, she could step down to a Tory after. But that is seven years away! Might as well throw your money in the wind.
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
1) They split, like the SDP on steroids, and New Labour becomes the Opposition.
2) They put on gimp suits and acknowledge Chairman Corbyn as their master.
3) They have another leadership contest and keep doing that until he resigns.
Personally, I'd go for 1, bit there we are.
One of the most EPIC comments ever on PB.
Jeremy Corbyn is probably the best value of the lot, mind. Not value, bit like a lucky dip lottery ticket over 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
& Hammond for actuarial reasons. Though I don't think 25-1 is a correct price for this.
Excellent post and analysis
It went on and on and on
The death penalty however is a rule of entry, and the EU is under no legal obligation to trade with anyone. If they don't want to trade with country X because of Y then that is their choice, and member states will need to decide if that is a price worth paying to be a member of the club.
Edited extra bit: should clarify, for Labour I meant an outright win. There were, of course, many who thought a Lab-SNP coalition could've happened in 2015.
Inflation remains way below BoE target.
The same could be said of the 1980s, of course. But then the rebellion was being led by some big figures in politics, who had risen almost to the top. I think at that level you get accustomed to seeing yourself as more important than the party, rightly or wrongly, and that if you did jump you would carry people with you (as indeed was the case).
The current batch of MP rebels are all juniors with few followers.
How long ago were Latvian Homophobes? March 2009!
[On that note, Ladbrokes have made me look a numpty by not putting up their Hungarian markets yet, as I said they would...]
2. Indeed, the battle isn't necessarily just 2020; Labour could face such a crushing defeat under him that it will take two, three or more elections to come back from.
3. They went into Westminster to make a difference, not to stage some glorified sit-in.
4. Corbyn is not only a useless leader but is not even interested in leading, merely persuading/opposing as an individual.
5. The longer he stays in office, the more damage he does to:
i. Labour's campaigning structure - its national office and the like.
ii. Its membership base, alienating moderates and letting in infiltrators.
iii. The Labour brand.
6. He has already - in their view - been perhaps the difference between Brexit and Bremain: that's a massive defeat not only on his watch but arguably with his connivance.
7. The Tories have clearly got their act together. EURef split the party and the practicalities might cause ongoing fissures but the leadership contest demonstrated a very real ability to keep those divisions within workable limits. That has to be worrying for Labour.
8. Without looking relevant at Westminster, how can Labour aim to win the Scottish seats back, short of hoping for an SNP collapse based on some black swan event?
9. The media don't take him seriously, and never will.
10. Even if they actually did support him, originally or as an individual, the game's gone too far. After being no-confidenced by 4:1, that division can never be healed so one side must decisively win if Labour is to ever offer credible opposition again.
In better news, Twitter reports Brawn is a target for Ferrari.
But in what role? He had the best career as a team owner (one season, took both titles), guided Mercedes to its current success and was technical chief, I think, during Schumacher's reign at Ferrari.
Heart of Stone...
Nice to get a longer one right this year. And I even put a pound or two on it myself.
750/1 would be rather splendid. I do wonder if Leicester City's win meant an economic surge for the city. Lots of fans must've put on a pound or a fiver.
Oakham is already in a total uproar at your wicked affront and Ayston would be but there's a coffee morning in the Rectory to determine whether to have a magician or conjurer at Farmer White's daughters birthday bash. They'll probably opt for both ....
After university, Ellwood served in the British Army with the Royal Green Jackets from 1991. He left the Army with the rank of Captain in 1996. After resigning his commission he became a researcher to the Conservative MP Tom King."
Without significant parliamentary experience, but the FCO seems a decent fit?
Not sure how I'll respond (in betting terms) once Sky has the lot. I did say at the time (I think) this would be the result of the BBC's Judas Iscariot approach to the licence fee-payer.
One might sell you soul for the former and condemn yourself to purgatory to avoid the latter.