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.
Other than the Irish electorate when they get the answer wrong in a referendum?
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.
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.
Other than the Irish electorate when they get the answer wrong in a referendum?
Yes but they had a hundred years of knuckling under experience.
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.
They forgot to allow A50 to be reciprocal - ie allow the commission to serve it on a country that has voted to leave setting the clock ticking...
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?
It's not quite the same as forming a new political party. More a Bernie Sanders disengagement. More likely than not it would lead to some sort of separate party in due course, but it wouldn't be inevitable, unlike the course which events took in 1981.
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.
Other than the Irish electorate when they get the answer wrong in a referendum?
Yes but they had a hundred years of knuckling under experience.
I can't get over how chuffed I am about the British saying No to the EU. It sums up our two-fingers attitude when things go too far.
After all the horrors in France, I've been pondering what we'd expect our politicians to do if we'd experienced a similar series of atrocities. It wouldn't be patience and acceptance that 'it's just how things are'.
Just one would have resulted in big changes in top dogs.
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.
There are very few of us around, who remember Attlee. I was still at school, with several years to go before I could vote, when he fought his last election.
And my friend the local Labour Party Secretary, although retired, has only read about him.
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.
They forgot to allow A50 to be reciprocal - ie allow the commission to serve it on a country that has voted to leave setting the clock ticking...
Although I think we'll be declaring within a few months no matte what May's initial intentions, it might be a good idea for the EU to amend things if possible to avoid just such a scenario in future - works for us really, that they know we're going but cannot force the issue formally, but it does seem to have been an oversight. Although I suppose the problem is if, like us, any referendum to leave were not binding, it would hardly be fair for the EU to trigger things if the government has not done so.
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.
In fairness to Labour MPs, they have actually provided some good reasons, though the memebers seem to disagree.
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.
The problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't lead. At all. A leader's job is to lead.
The whole Labour fiasco only makes sense when looked at through the prism of the hard left. For decades they have dreamt of controlling the Labour party via a committed militant group of activists.
It's all dressed up in terms of democracy and mandate etc etc but in reality it's a group of 250,000 exercising total control over one of the 2 major UK parties.To many of these people who have spent their entire lives in irrelevant leftist grouplets like TUSC, SWP and the myriad other Judea People's Front outfits that have existed on the fringes what is happening is success beyond their wildest dreams.
They don't give a stuff about winning elections, this is what they have been waiting for. The last serious assault came from Militant Tendancy in the 80's and that was just about repulsed. After disillusionment with Blair and Iraq there were enough useful idiots of the youthful momentum variety but there is no doubt who is pulling the strings.
If Corbyn wins again the game is over, Labour will be completely made over in their image via deselections, rule changes and so on. Anyone with an opposing point of view will be hounded out of the party.
They are of course relying on the strength of the Labour brand but as we saw in Scotland tribal- political identity is not what it was.
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.
There are very few of us around, who remember Attlee. I was still at school, with several years to go before I could vote, when he fought his last election.
And my friend the local Labour Party Secretary, although retired, has only read about him.
My earliest is PM Ted Heath. I was 7 in 1974 and recall it pretty well. I tried to persuade my parents to vote for the EU in 1975 Some great pix of the Three Day Week here.
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.
Other than the Irish electorate when they get the answer wrong in a referendum?
Yes but they had a hundred years of knuckling under experience.
I can't get over how chuffed I am about the British saying No to the EU. It sums up our two-fingers attitude when things go too far.
After all the horrors in France, I've been pondering what we'd expect our politicians to do if we'd experienced a similar series of atrocities. It wouldn't be patience and acceptance that 'it's just how things are'.
Just one would have resulted in big changes in top dogs.
Politicians do seem to have 9 lives in France. Were there any high profile resignations in the UK after 7/7?
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
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.
They forgot to allow A50 to be reciprocal - ie allow the commission to serve it on a country that has voted to leave setting the clock ticking...
Although I think we'll be declaring within a few months no matte what May's initial intentions, it might be a good idea for the EU to amend things if possible to avoid just such a scenario in future - works for us really, that they know we're going but cannot force the issue formally, but it does seem to have been an oversight. Although I suppose the problem is if, like us, any referendum to leave were not binding, it would hardly be fair for the EU to trigger things if the government has not done so.
Good morning all.
Lisbon would not have been signed if there were an option whereby the Commission could eject a member state via article 50.
It won't be amended - the Council is, to put it mildly, not enthused by the idea of a new treaty.
Possibly the oversight was in thinking that a member state might decide to withdraw via referendum, rather than as a manifesto commitment.
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.
Newcastle charge £1.00 for 10 minutes in their drop-off area. You can go to the short-stay car-park a bit further away and have the ten minutes for nothing.
(There is a lay-by about half a mile away usually full of cars whose drivers are waiting for their partners to get through border control). Mobile phones are great!
And my friend the local Labour Party Secretary, although retired, has only read about him.
One of the reasons that the Labour party is in such turmoil is that they have failed to heed the lessons of the past and another is that the Jezzbollah neither believe it or care.
Mr. kle4, I enjoyed it rather a lot. Worth checking out, and not difficult for even a newcomer to that era to follow.
Mr. W, we do not discuss the Predecessors.
[On a more serious note, it's 'the Sixth' because in the Bible seven represents the perfection of God and in the parable where Jesus turns water into wine, the water of men is kept in six jars, signifying that humanity is inferior to divinity. Thaddeus was also chosen because he's my favourite disciple].
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
Sounds like the SNP are going nuclear on the subject ....
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
Yes - and why not - you put forward preposterous plans hoping politicians may be persuaded to provide pork-barrel for postponing or preventing their performance.
Mr. Disraeli, yes. The SNP MPs are a collection of cantankerous Eeyores, moaning about everything and demanding vetoes over this, that and the other (the EU deal and Trident in the last couple of weeks alone).
Mr. kle4, I enjoyed it rather a lot. Worth checking out, and not difficult for even a newcomer to that era to follow.
Mr. W, we do not discuss the Predecessors.
[On a more serious note, it's 'the Sixth' because in the Bible seven represents the perfection of God and in the parable where Jesus turns water into wine, the water of men is kept in six jars, signifying that humanity is inferior to divinity. Thaddeus was also chosen because he's my favourite disciple].
Of course, six is also a perfect number. Seven is merely a commonplace prime.
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
That is their general position, yes. If they don't have independence, yet, they would like independence in all but name, and in the mean time seem to suggest we live in a federal state where Scotland has overruling powers on everything. Now, some would say that such a Federal system would be a good idea, or at least worth exploring, but we don't live in such.
But of course that's not what it is about - it's about furthering the sense of division between Scotland and, primarily, England. The two are not as different as most people seem to think, but the perception is they are, and where there are genuine differences, on Trident, the EU, of course the SNP will utilise that, and use the facts of the present situation - that Scotland has no power to refuse the nuclear weapons if the UK as a whole votes to keep them at Clyde - to bolster their cause as a demonstration of the Union working against the wishes of Scotland.
I cannot begrudge them that. It's an issue they are in accord with Scottish voters on, apparently, and they'll use that as best they can.
Although honestly, I'd heard that in effect that was the only place we really could keep the nuclear subs in these islands - I don't know if that is true, but if it is, I would have thought rUK would have to make a deal wherein even in an Indy Scotland the base and subs stayed as they are. Would be worth some hefty concessions no doubt.
Newcastle charge £1.00 for 10 minutes in their drop-off area. You can go to the short-stay car-park a bit further away and have the ten minutes for nothing.
(There is a lay-by about half a mile away usually full of cars whose drivers are waiting for their partners to get through border control). Mobile phones are great!
Luton charge £2.50 .... even for my sedan chair !!
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.
Newcastle charge £1.00 for 10 minutes in their drop-off area. You can go to the short-stay car-park a bit further away and have the ten minutes for nothing.
(There is a lay-by about half a mile away usually full of cars whose drivers are waiting for their partners to get through border control). Mobile phones are great!
Similar to Stansted, then, except that being in the SE the charge is £3! £53 if you stay more than 10 minutes. There’s an hour fee parking area a short bus ride away. All OK if one can manage ones luggage easily. Neither Heathrow nor Gatwick charge though, and it all seems to work. Puts me off using Stansted.
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
Not so much a veto on an independent nuclear deterrent, as opposed to a veto on what happens on Scottish soil (or under Scottish water). But nevertheless, an important attempt to redefine the relative powers of Holyrood and Westminster.
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.
Other than the Irish electorate when they get the answer wrong in a referendum?
Yes but they had a hundred years of knuckling under experience.
I can't get over how chuffed I am about the British saying No to the EU. It sums up our two-fingers attitude when things go too far.
After all the horrors in France, I've been pondering what we'd expect our politicians to do if we'd experienced a similar series of atrocities. It wouldn't be patience and acceptance that 'it's just how things are'.
Just one would have resulted in big changes in top dogs.
Politicians do seem to have 9 lives in France. Were there any high profile resignations in the UK after 7/7?
Looks like mainly process stuff - need to do more digging. The Met's top brass were overtaken by expenses events scandals. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33388286
FFS Three people shot dead in Spalding, police say not terrorism related.
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
It can't go on. In Scotland we have a proud nation that has the population of one of the smaller regions of England (e.g the SW or Yorks & Humberside). I don't see how we reconcile those two facts. Even home rule wouldn't work for them, given that there are no really useful English sally points for our Vanguards.
[On a more serious note, it's 'the Sixth' because in the Bible seven represents the perfection of God and in the parable where Jesus turns water into wine, the water of men is kept in six jars, signifying that humanity is inferior to divinity. Thaddeus was also chosen because he's my favourite disciple].
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
No. they're making it clear yet again to their electorate that they have absolutely no control over decisions made for Scotland by a Conservative government for which Scots didn't vote. It's not complicated.
Or do you think the SNP actually believe they're going to be given a veto by Tessie, Destroyer of Worlds?
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.
There are very few of us around, who remember Attlee. I was still at school, with several years to go before I could vote, when he fought his last election.
And my friend the local Labour Party Secretary, although retired, has only read about him.
My earliest is PM Ted Heath. I was 7 in 1974 and recall it pretty well. I tried to persuade my parents to vote for the EU in 1975 Some great pix of the Three Day Week here.
I believe that that list is in order of seniority. If I'm right, it's remarkable: Amber Rudd number 3, ahead of Boris, and with Davis and Fox next after Boris.
The promotion of Amber Rudd is one of the big stories of the May appointments.
Mr. Divvie, I have more sympathy with that argument on the EU than Trident. Trident being renewed is not unexpected. For that matter, the Scots are fairly evenly split on it [in stark contrast to their MPs].
Mr. W, what a modest chap you are
Mr. M, Yorkshire isn't a small region. It's a large county. And it must be good, because it's God's. [Kind words of yours on the numbers].
Mr. Disraeli, yes. The SNP MPs are a collection of cantankerous Eeyores, moaning about everything and demanding vetoes over this, that and the other (the EU deal and Trident in the last couple of weeks alone).
Their dog in the manger tactics are very deliberate. They want to be so bloody awkward and miserable that we'll offer them anything they want just to shut up. Like a nagging wife who only wants to hear Yes, Dear.
"On average, incomes rose by 2 per cent in real terms between 2007/08 and 2014/15, according to the IFS. However, that figure concealed very different experiences for different generations including: incomes for those aged over 60 rose by 11 per cent over the period, when measured before housing costs, and those aged 31 to 59 have had no change in incomes. But incomes for those aged 22 to 30 have fallen by 7 per cent."
1. If Corbyn is defeated I expect the cries of betrayal will resound for years and years. That seems to me to be toxic to any chance of unity. His supporters will feel - however wrongly - that he was ousted unfairly because of MPs disloyalty.
2. It would be better if his brand of politics was clearly defeated at a general election. Only then can an alternative have a chance of being accepted. I realize that such a defeat - especially if it is heavy - could cause real problems for Labour but sometimes parties have to realize how unattractive they are to the voters before they will do what is necessary.
3. I don't agree that the problem is only Corbyn's leadership style and not his politics and it seems to me that the rebels are missing a trick by saying that they have no disagreement with Corbyn's policies. It makes it look as if this is really about ambition i.e. I could do a better job and as if they're not willing to do what they can to help him lead. Now whether true or not, it makes it look as if this is a personality issue.
4. The real problem is that the rebels have no alternative world view about what Labour is for. That is what they need to be thinking about and putting forward. Saying that their main beef with Corbyn is that he's no good at chairing committees is frankly pathetic. The problems with him and his ilk are not those: it is that they have a view of politics which is frankly repellent, provides no answers to the problems of today and, if enacted, would likely make matters very much worse, particularly for the people which Labour claims to represent.
5. The right of the party or the centre left need to come up with a political world view which is something other than reheated Blairism (which was little more than "vote for me because I look like a Tory and won't tax you too much but say - and occasionally do - nice liberal things") or reheated Marxism.
Someone within Labour needs to sit down and do some thinking about what a social democratic/centre left party should be in the 21st century. When they've done that they can think about challenges and all the rest of it. At the moment they're arse over tip.
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
It can't go on. In Scotland we have a proud nation that has the population of one of the smaller regions of England (e.g the SW or Yorks & Humberside). I don't see how we reconcile those two facts. Even home rule wouldn't work for them, given that there are no really useful English sally points for our Vanguards.
Well you never know, the Scots might eventually get tired of a government that spends all its time posturing, grandstanding and engaging in grievance politics.
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.
Still, apart from those points, things aren't too bad.
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
Yes - and why not - you put forward preposterous plans hoping politicians may be persuaded to provide pork-barrel for postponing or preventing their performance.
I guess it would be expensive, but given that Scotland could be about to have another referendum on independence, perhaps it would be prudent to move the base out of Scotland. I'd also start relocating civil service jobs out of Scotland too.
[On a more serious note, it's 'the Sixth' because in the Bible seven represents the perfection of God and in the parable where Jesus turns water into wine, the water of men is kept in six jars, signifying that humanity is inferior to divinity. Thaddeus was also chosen because he's my favourite disciple].
JackW VIII thanks you ....
Edit .. My avatar is James VIII of Scotland.
I believe from the little I've read about him that the UK may have missed out on one of their better kings in James VIII/III
3. I don't agree that the problem is only Corbyn's leadership style and not his politics and it seems to me that the rebels are missing a trick by saying that they have no disagreement with Corbyn's policies. It makes it look as if this is really about ambition i.e. I could do a better job and as if they're not willing to do what they can to help him lead. Now whether true or not, it makes it look as if this is a personality issue.
I don't think that is the problem either, with just his style and not his politics, but that is the stated problem of most of them - because the MPs know, or think they know, that the members like Corbyn's policies and they are not strong enough to reverse that. So they go for the next best thing, which is at least get somebody competent in to make a go of those policies, someone they can stand behind, so if they fail it cannot be said to be due to disloyalty of the MPs.
As with many things, the main problem is ordinary members and voters, but you don't get a head by saying such a thing.
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
It can't go on. In Scotland we have a proud nation that has the population of one of the smaller regions of England (e.g the SW or Yorks & Humberside). I don't see how we reconcile those two facts. Even home rule wouldn't work for them, given that there are no really useful English sally points for our Vanguards.
Well you never know, the Scots might eventually get tired of a government that spends all its time posturing, grandstanding and engaging in grievance politics.
We can look forward to the fallout at the fourth reelection attempt of President Sturgeon.
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.
There are very few of us around, who remember Attlee. I was still at school, with several years to go before I could vote, when he fought his last election.
And my friend the local Labour Party Secretary, although retired, has only read about him.
My earliest is PM Ted Heath. I was 7 in 1974 and recall it pretty well. I tried to persuade my parents to vote for the EU in 1975 Some great pix of the Three Day Week here.
''Well you never know, the Scots might eventually get tired of a government that spends all its time posturing, grandstanding and engaging in grievance politics.''
[On a more serious note, it's 'the Sixth' because in the Bible seven represents the perfection of God and in the parable where Jesus turns water into wine, the water of men is kept in six jars, signifying that humanity is inferior to divinity. Thaddeus was also chosen because he's my favourite disciple].
JackW VIII thanks you ....
Edit .. My avatar is James VIII of Scotland.
I believe from the little I've read about him that the UK may have missed out on one of their better kings in James VIII/III
Suddenly Boris looks like a grown up. He knows if he succeeds at this job, he is virtually a shoe-in for the next PM.
Full credit to David Cameron and all the ex-ministers, who showed up and sat at the backbenches yesterday. The only worrying sign was Michael Gove and Nick Boles huddled in the corner, you would think they had a bit more self-awareness. I really do hope they are not planning any nonsense.
[On a more serious note, it's 'the Sixth' because in the Bible seven represents the perfection of God and in the parable where Jesus turns water into wine, the water of men is kept in six jars, signifying that humanity is inferior to divinity. Thaddeus was also chosen because he's my favourite disciple].
JackW VIII thanks you ....
Edit .. My avatar is James VIII of Scotland.
I believe from the little I've read about him that the UK may have missed out on one of their better kings in James VIII/III
His son was a bit of a plonker, though.
Not an unusual situation with monarchs and their successors, even nowadays.
Smith does fractionally better than Eagle then and should be the non-Corbyn candidate but Corbyn will likely win anyway even if a little down from last September. He should then be secure at least until next May when Labour may come third in the County Council elections behind the Tories and UKIP. However I can only see McDonnell replacing him now though before the general election.
Newt Gingrich said at the GOP convention last night the establishment in the party was not completely united behind Trump but the GOP was in a far better place than the British Labour Party right now, which I think was a fair point
''Well you never know, the Scots might eventually get tired of a government that spends all its time posturing, grandstanding and engaging in grievance politics.''
I wondered the same.
"posturing, grandstanding and engaging in grievance" is the Scottish ground state
Labour did it for years against Tories. SNP are doing it against "Westminster". And Tories.
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.
The problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't lead. At all. A leader's job is to lead.
The whole Labour fiasco only makes sense when looked at through the prism of the hard left. For decades they have dreamt of controlling the Labour party via a committed militant group of activists.
It's all dressed up in terms of democracy and mandate etc etc but in reality it's a group of 250,000 exercising total control over one of the 2 major UK parties.To many of these people who have spent their entire lives in irrelevant leftist grouplets like TUSC, SWP and the myriad other Judea People's Front outfits that have existed on the fringes what is happening is success beyond their wildest dreams.
They don't give a stuff about winning elections, this is what they have been waiting for. The last serious assault came from Militant Tendancy in the 80's and that was just about repulsed. After disillusionment with Blair and Iraq there were enough useful idiots of the youthful momentum variety but there is no doubt who is pulling the strings.
If Corbyn wins again the game is over, Labour will be completely made over in their image via deselections, rule changes and so on. Anyone with an opposing point of view will be hounded out of the party.
They are of course relying on the strength of the Labour brand but as we saw in Scotland tribal- political identity is not what it was.
I don't think that there are 250,000 members of the hard left in the Labour party. I'd say that there are maybe about 50,000 or so. Corbyn's support comes from them plus around 200,000 basically comfortably off people who have no real fear of a Tory government and no real expectation of a Labour one (and maybe don't even want it to happen as it will only shatter their illusions and actually make them a bit worse off). Corbyn supporters on here are very keen to tell us just how awful Blairites and the Labour right are and how there is no-one who is better than Corbyn to lead Labour, but they never tell us exactly what they want from a Corbyn Labour party. It's basically, I think, not to be an electable one - ie, one that must make compromises to gain power.
That is what I would think. I would be interested to know what they classify as assault. I can't imagine many 100 year old being able to assault anybody as most people think of as an assault.
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.
They also know that Corbyn has no interest in the PLP and does not believe that socialism can be delivered via Parliament.
Mr. Disraeli, yes. The SNP MPs are a collection of cantankerous Eeyores, moaning about everything and demanding vetoes over this, that and the other (the EU deal and Trident in the last couple of weeks alone).
Their dog in the manger tactics are very deliberate. They want to be so bloody awkward and miserable that we'll offer them anything they want just to shut up. Like a nagging wife who only wants to hear Yes, Dear.
I agree, they are really turning into a rabble and extremely irritating. Mhairi black must be the world's worse fidget, she never sits still. Far too young to be in politics.
1. If Corbyn is defeated I expect the cries of betrayal will resound for years and years. That seems to me to be toxic to any chance of unity. His supporters will feel - however wrongly - that he was ousted unfairly because of MPs disloyalty.
2. It would be better if his brand of politics was clearly defeated at a general election. Only then can an alternative have a chance of being accepted. I realize that such a defeat - especially if it is heavy - could cause real problems for Labour but sometimes parties have to realize how unattractive they are to the voters before they will do what is necessary.
3. I don't agree that the problem is only Corbyn's leadership style and not his politics and it seems to me that the rebels are missing a trick by saying that they have no disagreement with Corbyn's policies. It makes it look as if this is really about ambition i.e. I could do a better job and as if they're not willing to do what they can to help him lead. Now whether true or not, it makes it look as if this is a personality issue.
4. The real problem is that the rebels have no alternative world view about what Labour is for. That is what they need to be thinking about and putting forward. Saying that their main beef with Corbyn is that he's no good at chairing committees is frankly pathetic. The problems with him and his ilk are not those: it is that they have a view of politics which is frankly repellent, provides no answers to the problems of today and, if enacted, would likely make matters very much worse, particularly for the people which Labour claims to represent.
5. The right of the party or the centre left need to come up with a political world view which is something other than reheated Blairism (which was little more than "vote for me because I look like a Tory and won't tax you too much but say - and occasionally do - nice liberal things") or reheated Marxism.
Someone within Labour needs to sit down and do some thinking about what a social democratic/centre left party should be in the 21st century. When they've done that they can think about challenges and all the rest of it. At the moment they're arse over tip.
If Corbyn had been kept off the ballot- then there would have been cries of betrayal that would never have gone away. If he loses the election then a) his supporters are not as many as thought and b) it will probably be accepted by at least some of his supporters.
It would have been better for him to have more time before this challenge for at the least an appearance of giving him a fair chance- but too late for that now.
Absolutely agree that Labour needs a renewal to work out what it is for. Ed Miliband made a start on this IMO and that's why the Tories nicked the best bits of his ideas.
I believe that that list is in order of seniority. If I'm right, it's remarkable: Amber Rudd number 3, ahead of Boris, and with Davis and Fox next after Boris.
The promotion of Amber Rudd is one of the big stories of the May appointments.
Amber Rudd holds one of the great offices of state: Davis Fox et al do not. Boris does, of course, but's he's only just after her.
I believe from the little I've read about him that the UK may have missed out on one of their better kings in James VIII/III
Indeed so.
The Whigs, aka the 1714 LibDems, have a lot to answer for.
What is the evidence base for that?
As far as I can tell he suffered from the insuperable arrogance and enthusiastic desire for treasonous colloboration with the French that all the Stuarts did.
LOL...I do wonder how some people remember breath.
Well, how many of us middle aged folks remember the 30s, 40s and 50s? Remember, in 2020 there will be voters who were born after 9/11. Tempus fugit.
There is not knowing all the PM in order & not knowing we had a woman PM called Thatcher. Not like we are talking about Eden. Not only first woman but in power for a long time & just a tad controversial.
I don't know what they do in history these days , but we did all PMs / major policies & circa 1900 to present day. Not going to say I can remember all PMs , but got a fair idea of what went on in each decade.
I read the Times today, looked at the Mail and Telegraph - and there was no fun at all. We've enjoyed an all-you-can-eat buffet for weeks.
The Telegraph online is becoming less and less like a proper news presence. This morning on the front page they have an article about Pippa Middleton possibly being engaged to some bloke yet to find a report on yesterday's Trident debate I had to go rummaging in the depths of the politics section two levels down.
The Telegraph online is morphing into the Daily Mail, celebrity gossip backed up with poorly written articles, that have clearly never been proof read led alone subject to a proper sub-editor. If it wasn't for Herself's addiction to the crossword in the print paper (which is still sometimes half-decent) I would have cancelled my subscription long ago.
Mr. Divvie, I have more sympathy with that argument on the EU than Trident. Trident being renewed is not unexpected.
Who said it was unexpected? The SNP have had removal of nuclear weapons in their manifestos since nineteen canteen, and at the last Holyrood election were given the strongest mandate of any governing party in Western Europe. What other methods would would you suggest to Scottish voters for getting rid of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil?
Mr. M, Yorkshire isn't a small region. It's a large county.
If being curmudgeonly buggers is enough of a defining trait for the Scots to call themselves a country, then I think Yorkshire could lay equal claim to nation status...
Mr. Divvie, I have more sympathy with that argument on the EU than Trident. Trident being renewed is not unexpected.
Who said it was unexpected? The SNP have had removal of nuclear weapons in their manifestos since nineteen canteen, and at the last Holyrood election were given the strongest mandate of any governing party in Western Europe. What other methods would would you suggest to Scottish voters for getting rid of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil?
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?
From the outside looking in it would seem clear that a split is surely the only option. But I am not so sure it will happen. There are very specific reasons for this. I am mulling a piece on it. But I refer PB readers to this speech by Hugh Gaitskill:
"We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness."
Mr. Divvie, I have more sympathy with that argument on the EU than Trident. Trident being renewed is not unexpected.
Who said it was unexpected? The SNP have had removal of nuclear weapons in their manifestos since nineteen canteen, and at the last Holyrood election were given the strongest mandate of any governing party in Western Europe. What other methods would would you suggest to Scottish voters for getting rid of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil?
Some salient points beyond those already reported widely: 1. The poll is confined to members pre 2016 so likely to be quite close to the actual selectorate save registered supporters. 2. In a head to head, Corbyn leads Smith by 22% net, Eagle by 24% net. 3. 47% want Corbyn to fight next general election, 46% don't (but 9% want him to carry on for now). 4. Those who were members prior to the GE would vote for Smith or Eagle over Corbyn, both by a net margin of 7%. So very different to the 2015 leadership election, but the new members have countered that shift. 5. The only crumb of comfort for the ABCs is that 69% say they don't know much about Smith, compared to 26% for Eagle. So Smith, but not Eagle, has a chance still to define himself as a unity candidate who appeals still to most members' core values and potentially close the gap (by a bit, but surely not enough).
LOL...I do wonder how some people remember breath.
Well, how many of us middle aged folks remember the 30s, 40s and 50s? Remember, in 2020 there will be voters who were born after 9/11. Tempus fugit.
There is not knowing all the PM in order & not knowing we had a woman PM called Thatcher. Not like we are talking about Eden. Not only first woman but in power for a long time & just a tad controversial.
I'm trying to be kind, dammit . I can well imagine that for some young Lefties Thatcher isn't remembered for being PM as much as some overarching spirit of malevolence, like Sauron or the Brollachan. She's mythic in a way that Heath, Major or Cameron could never be.
Jon Ashworth is on BBC. He's an idiot. He's muddled up Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, he used the abolition of the climate change department as an example of May's lack of commitment to social justice, and he has said that because it was only a narrow win for leave that the people haven't spoken clearly and hinted that he will vote against A50 as a result.
And scarily, he is one of the brighter people who is supporting Corbyn.
1. If Corbyn is defeated I expect the cries of betrayal will resound for years and years. That seems to me to be toxic to any chance of unity. His supporters will feel - however wrongly - that he was ousted unfairly because of MPs disloyalty.
2. It would be better if his brand of politics was clearly defeated at a general election. Only then can an alternative have a chance of being accepted. I realize that such a defeat - especially if it is heavy - could cause real problems for Labour but sometimes parties have to realize how unattractive they are to the voters before they will do what is necessary.
3. I don't agree that the problem is only Corbyn's leadership style and not his politics and it seems to me that the rebels are missing a trick by saying that they have no disagreement with Corbyn's policies. It makes it look as if this is really about ambition i.e. I could do a better job and as if they're not willing to do what they can to help him lead. Now whether true or not, it makes it look as if this is a personality issue.
4. The real problem is that the rebels have no alternative world view about what Labour is for. That is what they need to be thinking about and putting forward. Saying that their main beef with Corbyn is that he's no good at chairing committees is frankly pathetic. The problems with him and his ilk are not those: it is that they have a view of politics which is frankly repellent, provides no answers to the problems of today and, if enacted, would likely make matters very much worse, particularly for the people which Labour claims to represent.
5. The right of the party or the centre left need to come up with a political world view which is something other than reheated Blairism (which was little more than "vote for me because I look like a Tory and won't tax you too much but say - and occasionally do - nice liberal things") or reheated Marxism.
Someone within Labour needs to sit down and do some thinking about what a social democratic/centre left party should be in the 21st century. When they've done that they can think about challenges and all the rest of it. At the moment they're arse over tip.
Suddenly Boris looks like a grown up. He knows if he succeeds at this job, he is virtually a shoe-in for the next PM.
Full credit to David Cameron and all the ex-ministers, who showed up and sat at the backbenches yesterday. The only worrying sign was Michael Gove and Nick Boles huddled in the corner, you would think they had a bit more self-awareness. I really do hope they are not planning any nonsense.
This is Boris. There will be cockups, humble apologies, diplomatic triumphs, ignominious demotions, unexpected comebacks and plenty more before the job comes vacant (and that'll be just the next twelve months).
Absolutely agree that Labour needs a renewal to work out what it is for. Ed Miliband made a start on this IMO and that's why the Tories nicked the best bits of his ideas.
The Corbynistas don't seem to have recognised that the folks in power will always nick the best bits of your ideas. The rest of your ideas? They will use their platform of authority to lampoon as utterly barking. Like nuclear subs with no nuclear missiles. Point and laugh.
Which is why power is a thing you really can't dispense with...
Comments
Another generation of Labour MPs get dustbinned - most walk away to do something else with their lives.
Tom Watson has the right idea - they need to get rid of Len via Unite elections.
Very good!
Although the reference is a tad modern for some of PB's classical historians.
https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/status/755332022801924097
Recently reviewed an Alfred biography, actually:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/review-alfred-great-by-justin-pollard.html
After all the horrors in France, I've been pondering what we'd expect our politicians to do if we'd experienced a similar series of atrocities. It wouldn't be patience and acceptance that 'it's just how things are'.
Just one would have resulted in big changes in top dogs.
And my friend the local Labour Party Secretary, although retired, has only read about him.
It's all dressed up in terms of democracy and mandate etc etc but in reality it's a group of 250,000 exercising total control over one of the 2 major UK parties.To many of these people who have spent their entire lives in irrelevant leftist grouplets like TUSC, SWP and the myriad other Judea People's Front outfits that have existed on the fringes what is happening is success beyond their wildest dreams.
They don't give a stuff about winning elections, this is what they have been waiting for. The last serious assault came from Militant Tendancy in the 80's and that was just about repulsed.
After disillusionment with Blair and Iraq there were enough useful idiots of the youthful momentum variety but there is no doubt who is pulling the strings.
If Corbyn wins again the game is over, Labour will be completely made over in their image via deselections, rule changes and so on. Anyone with an opposing point of view will be hounded out of the party.
They are of course relying on the strength of the Labour brand but as we saw in Scotland tribal- political identity is not what it was.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/gallery/2009/apr/16/past-conservatives
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36832631
The SNP said Scotland's decision against renewal should be respected.
It said the UK government should "remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde".
Correct me if I am reading too much into this, but aren't the SNP effectively suggesting that they should have a veto on any decision taken by the Westminster Parliament that they don't like?
Lisbon would not have been signed if there were an option whereby the Commission could eject a member state via article 50.
It won't be amended - the Council is, to put it mildly, not enthused by the idea of a new treaty.
Possibly the oversight was in thinking that a member state might decide to withdraw via referendum, rather than as a manifesto commitment.
(There is a lay-by about half a mile away usually full of cars whose drivers are waiting for their partners to get through border control). Mobile phones are great!
Mr. W, we do not discuss the Predecessors.
[On a more serious note, it's 'the Sixth' because in the Bible seven represents the perfection of God and in the parable where Jesus turns water into wine, the water of men is kept in six jars, signifying that humanity is inferior to divinity. Thaddeus was also chosen because he's my favourite disciple].
But of course that's not what it is about - it's about furthering the sense of division between Scotland and, primarily, England. The two are not as different as most people seem to think, but the perception is they are, and where there are genuine differences, on Trident, the EU, of course the SNP will utilise that, and use the facts of the present situation - that Scotland has no power to refuse the nuclear weapons if the UK as a whole votes to keep them at Clyde - to bolster their cause as a demonstration of the Union working against the wishes of Scotland.
I cannot begrudge them that. It's an issue they are in accord with Scottish voters on, apparently, and they'll use that as best they can.
Although honestly, I'd heard that in effect that was the only place we really could keep the nuclear subs in these islands - I don't know if that is true, but if it is, I would have thought rUK would have to make a deal wherein even in an Indy Scotland the base and subs stayed as they are. Would be worth some hefty concessions no doubt.
Neither Heathrow nor Gatwick charge though, and it all seems to work.
Puts me off using Stansted.
FFS Three people shot dead in Spalding, police say not terrorism related.
Edit .. My avatar is James VIII of Scotland.
Or do you think the SNP actually believe they're going to be given a veto by Tessie, Destroyer of Worlds?
The promotion of Amber Rudd is one of the big stories of the May appointments.
Mr. W, what a modest chap you are
Mr. M, Yorkshire isn't a small region. It's a large county. And it must be good, because it's God's. [Kind words of yours on the numbers].
Mr. Jonathan, not if you're Turkish.
"On average, incomes rose by 2 per cent in real terms between 2007/08 and 2014/15, according to the IFS. However, that figure concealed very different experiences for different generations including: incomes for those aged over 60 rose by 11 per cent over the period, when measured before housing costs, and those aged 31 to 59 have had no change in incomes. But incomes for those aged 22 to 30 have fallen by 7 per cent."
1. If Corbyn is defeated I expect the cries of betrayal will resound for years and years. That seems to me to be toxic to any chance of unity. His supporters will feel - however wrongly - that he was ousted unfairly because of MPs disloyalty.
2. It would be better if his brand of politics was clearly defeated at a general election. Only then can an alternative have a chance of being accepted. I realize that such a defeat - especially if it is heavy - could cause real problems for Labour but sometimes parties have to realize how unattractive they are to the voters before they will do what is necessary.
3. I don't agree that the problem is only Corbyn's leadership style and not his politics and it seems to me that the rebels are missing a trick by saying that they have no disagreement with Corbyn's policies. It makes it look as if this is really about ambition i.e. I could do a better job and as if they're not willing to do what they can to help him lead. Now whether true or not, it makes it look as if this is a personality issue.
4. The real problem is that the rebels have no alternative world view about what Labour is for. That is what they need to be thinking about and putting forward. Saying that their main beef with Corbyn is that he's no good at chairing committees is frankly pathetic. The problems with him and his ilk are not those: it is that they have a view of politics which is frankly repellent, provides no answers to the problems of today and, if enacted, would likely make matters very much worse, particularly for the people which Labour claims to represent.
5. The right of the party or the centre left need to come up with a political world view which is something other than reheated Blairism (which was little more than "vote for me because I look like a Tory and won't tax you too much but say - and occasionally do - nice liberal things") or reheated Marxism.
Someone within Labour needs to sit down and do some thinking about what a social democratic/centre left party should be in the 21st century. When they've done that they can think about challenges and all the rest of it. At the moment they're arse over tip.
The Whigs, aka the 1714 LibDems, have a lot to answer for.
As with many things, the main problem is ordinary members and voters, but you don't get a head by saying such a thing. We can look forward to the fallout at the fourth reelection attempt of President Sturgeon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=219ZR0JIRWU
I wondered the same.
About 4% of the assaults involved male and female patients who were over 100 years old.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36829120
Hmmmm
Full credit to David Cameron and all the ex-ministers, who showed up and sat at the backbenches yesterday. The only worrying sign was Michael Gove and Nick Boles huddled in the corner, you would think they had a bit more self-awareness. I really do hope they are not planning any nonsense.
Newt Gingrich said at the GOP convention last night the establishment in the party was not completely united behind Trump but the GOP was in a far better place than the British Labour Party right now, which I think was a fair point
Labour did it for years against Tories. SNP are doing it against "Westminster". And Tories.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/755344322560684032
It would have been better for him to have more time before this challenge for at the least an appearance of giving him a fair chance- but too late for that now.
Absolutely agree that Labour needs a renewal to work out what it is for. Ed Miliband made a start on this IMO and that's why the Tories nicked the best bits of his ideas.
As far as I can tell he suffered from the insuperable arrogance and enthusiastic desire for treasonous colloboration with the French that all the Stuarts did.
Ghastly dynasty.
I don't know what they do in history these days , but we did all PMs / major policies & circa 1900 to present day. Not going to say I can remember all PMs , but got a fair idea of what went on in each decade.
The Telegraph online is morphing into the Daily Mail, celebrity gossip backed up with poorly written articles, that have clearly never been proof read led alone subject to a proper sub-editor. If it wasn't for Herself's addiction to the crossword in the print paper (which is still sometimes half-decent) I would have cancelled my subscription long ago.
The SNP have had removal of nuclear weapons in their manifestos since nineteen canteen, and at the last Holyrood election were given the strongest mandate of any governing party in Western Europe. What other methods would would you suggest to Scottish voters for getting rid of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil?
Was Prime Minister! Makes me feel old!
Mind you, imagine how @JackW feels. There's been a hundred generations that have no recollection of the Earl Of Liverpool!
"We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness."
There's a labour threesome sex scandal to add to all the other shennanigans....??? Excellent
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/w0mr4c6hq9/TimesResults_160718_LabourMembers_Website.pdf
Some salient points beyond those already reported widely:
1. The poll is confined to members pre 2016 so likely to be quite close to the actual selectorate save registered supporters.
2. In a head to head, Corbyn leads Smith by 22% net, Eagle by 24% net.
3. 47% want Corbyn to fight next general election, 46% don't (but 9% want him to carry on for now).
4. Those who were members prior to the GE would vote for Smith or Eagle over Corbyn, both by a net margin of 7%. So very different to the 2015 leadership election, but the new members have countered that shift.
5. The only crumb of comfort for the ABCs is that 69% say they don't know much about Smith, compared to 26% for Eagle. So Smith, but not Eagle, has a chance still to define himself as a unity candidate who appeals still to most members' core values and potentially close the gap (by a bit, but surely not enough).
And scarily, he is one of the brighter people who is supporting Corbyn.
What a shambles Labour are.
Which is why power is a thing you really can't dispense with...