In the gaps between post I'm watching news with the sound off - with the rolling ticker there isn't much to be lost. The past hour has made me realise how much I rely on listening, and also just how massive Africa is.
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
Easy
The Dry-but-not-Obsessed-with-the-Gays-and-Europe New Tory Party
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
Easy
The Dry-but-not-Obsessed-with-the-Gays-and-Europe New Tory Party
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
The party name can be as long as you like. But the registered description for use on the ballot paper is limited to six words.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
It depends on the strength of your preference for anyone but Tory, surely?
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Don't be pessimistic, if there's demand for the viewpoint someone will step in to supply it
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
The party name can be as long as you like. But the registered description for use on the ballot paper is limited to six words.
Great piece by Economist (and BNC man) Tim Harford on Brexit and confirmation bias in the FT - also available on his website. Line about accepting bad news being because of Brexit but explaining away good news because it didn't chime with expectations would be well heeded by many on here, myself included:
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Clothes Pegs, Tactical voting, stand yourself. There are always options.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Never say never. Statistically, the older you get, the more likely you are to vote Tory.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
The LibDems are a centre/centre-left party. Is there some major reason why you could not vote for them?
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
The party name can be as long as you like. But the registered description for use on the ballot paper is limited to six words.
Not according to the Electoral Commission. See page 8, bullet 3 - marks (which includes names) must not be more than 6 words.
One of my Labour councillors, who is very close to our MP, yesterday analysed the situation for me as "if Smith wins, the problem is solved". I wonder how prevalent this view is among Non-Corby Labour politicians? For it seems remarkably short sighted to me.
Firstly, apart from being not-Corbyn, it cannot be clear even to Labour insiders what Smith actually is. The assumption he will be hugely better seems rash; he may just turn out bad in other ways?
Secondly, as far as I can see Smith is standing on pretty much the same platform as Corbyn, give or take? He may be a bit smoother and less shambolic at putting it across, but will still be offering a left wing programme that much of the public don't want, and will still get monstered by the press. So how much will what the MPs fear - a bad GE defeat - actually improve under Smith?
And thirdly what will the reaction of the Corbyn supporters, who would take a Smith win in current circumstances as another stitch up, be? At best they might leave, reducing Labour's ground army, but surely in many places, and within the party structures, the civil war would continue, or be strengthened?
As far as I can see the current Labour establishment view is 'just get rid of Corbyn and we will worry about everything else afterward'. Which is emotion and desperation, not a strategy!
In FPTP seats in Japan a lot of candidates run as nominal independents, albeit with the endorsement of one or more parties, which don't run candidates of their own.
Maybe that model would work for the left/centre-left in the UK: It gives the candidate a lot of room to optimize their platform for the constituency they're trying to win, and allows the parties get the advantages of a coalition without sullying each other's brands.
Southam Observer would probably work OK as a label for a candidate, as long as they're running in Southam.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Clothes Pegs, Tactical voting, stand yourself. There are always options.
One of my Labour councillors, who is very close to our MP, yesterday analysed the situation for me as "if Smith wins, the problem is solved". I wonder how prevalent this view is among Non-Corby Labour politicians? For it seems remarkably short sighted to me.
Firstly, apart from being not-Corbyn, it cannot be clear even to Labour insiders what Smith actually is. The assumption he will be hugely better seems rash; he may just turn out bad in other ways?
Secondly, as far as I can see Smith is standing on pretty much the same platform as Corbyn, give or take? He may be a bit smoother and less shambolic at putting it across, but will still be offering a left wing programme that much of the public don't want, and will still get monstered by the press. So how much will what the MPs fear - a bad GE defeat - actually improve under Smith?
And thirdly what will the reaction of the Corbyn supporters, who would take a Smith win in current circumstances as another stitch up, be? At best they might leave, reducing Labour's ground army, but surely in many places, and within the party structures, the civil war would continue, or be strengthened?
As far as I can see the current Labour establishment view is 'just get rid of Corbyn and we will worry about everything else afterward'. Which is emotion and desperation, not a strategy!
Indeed, if Momentum mobilize to take over the CLPs and the 'moderates' do not, it really doesn't matter what happens with the leadership battle, as the 'moderates' will be deselected, leading to a new leadership contest.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Clothes Pegs, Tactical voting, stand yourself. There are always options.
It's only £500 (and finding ten residents to nominate you)
One of my Labour councillors, who is very close to our MP, yesterday analysed the situation for me as "if Smith wins, the problem is solved". I wonder how prevalent this view is among Non-Corby Labour politicians? For it seems remarkably short sighted to me.
Firstly, apart from being not-Corbyn, it cannot be clear even to Labour insiders what Smith actually is. The assumption he will be hugely better seems rash; he may just turn out bad in other ways?
Secondly, as far as I can see Smith is standing on pretty much the same platform as Corbyn, give or take? He may be a bit smoother and less shambolic at putting it across, but will still be offering a left wing programme that much of the public don't want, and will still get monstered by the press. So how much will what the MPs fear - a bad GE defeat - actually improve under Smith?
And thirdly what will the reaction of the Corbyn supporters, who would take a Smith win in the crurrent circumstances as another stitch up, be? At best they might leave, reducing Labour's ground army, but surely in many places, and within the party structures, the civil war would continue, or be strengthened?
As far as I can see the current Labour establishment view is 'just get rid of Corbyn and we will worry about everything else afterward'. Which is emotion and desperation, not a strategy!
I think the councillor is basically correct. The vote is not about choosing someone to win the next GE. Instead, it's a vote about what Labour is: a party that primarily exists to win power through Parliament or a mass member protest group. If Smith wins, it's the former; if Corbyn wins it's the latter. Should Labour commit to Parliament, then everything else can be sorted out over time. If Labour rejects Parliament it says goodbye to ever being in power again.
What Labour MPs and many members fear most is not GE defeat in 2020, but permanent irrelevance. They believe that making Parliament a secondary consideration will do that. They are right. But they will lose.
Given Corbyn's impending destruction of Labour as a Parliamentary party of the centre left I guess I have to face up to the idea of never voting in a general election again. That's quite a thing.
Don't be pessimistic, if there's demand for the viewpoint someone will step in to supply it
One of my Labour councillors, who is very close to our MP, yesterday analysed the situation for me as "if Smith wins, the problem is solved". I wonder how prevalent this view is among Non-Corby Labour politicians? For it seems remarkably short sighted to me.
Firstly, apart from being not-Corbyn, it cannot be clear even to Labour insiders what Smith actually is. The assumption he will be hugely better seems rash; he may just turn out bad in other ways?
Secondly, as far as I can see Smith is standing on pretty much the same platform as Corbyn, give or take? He may be a bit smoother and less shambolic at putting it across, but will still be offering a left wing programme that much of the public don't want, and will still get monstered by the press. So how much will what the MPs fear - a bad GE defeat - actually improve under Smith?
And thirdly what will the reaction of the Corbyn supporters, who would take a Smith win in current circumstances as another stitch up, be? At best they might leave, reducing Labour's ground army, but surely in many places, and within the party structures, the civil war would continue, or be strengthened?
As far as I can see the current Labour establishment view is 'just get rid of Corbyn and we will worry about everything else afterward'. Which is emotion and desperation, not a strategy!
Indeed, if Momentum mobilize to take over the CLPs and the 'moderates' do not, it really doesn't matter what happens with the leadership battle, as the 'moderates' will be deselected, leading to a new leadership contest.
My guess is that they are thinking/hoping:
- that when Smith gets in he will "do a Kinnock", and tack dramatically to the centre - that under Smith the MPs take over the party structures one way or another and expel or marginalise the left-wingers, just as Kinnock did - once the dirty work is done Smith will probably lose anyway, and there'll be another election when the ones with real ambition can emerge
My challenges would be:
- Smith's history, such as it is, suggests he is fairly left wing - being Welsh doesn't mean he was born with the same internal management skills as Kinnock - 'phoning 999 (at the age of 30!) to get an interview with a top policeman doesn't hint at great common sense or ability to foresee the consequences of his actions! - the damage already done to the party's image is real and will be difficult to recover - this time given their numbers the left-wingers won't be so easy to get rid of
The 'doing our best for Corbyn and losing' approach - now no longer available - did at least offer the prospect of a lesson from the electorate to hold against the left wingers for another generation.
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
The party name can be as long as you like. But the registered description for use on the ballot paper is limited to six words.
Not according to the Electoral Commission. See page 8, bullet 3 - marks (which includes names) must not be more than 6 words.
PS I guess this applies to the name on the ballot paper, but it is a little ambiguous
Your PS is right. Although it would be peculiar for a party name to be so long that it couldn't also serve as a registered description, nevertheless it can be.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
If anything the world is tipping towards deflation which, since so many governments, companies and individuals are carrying huge debts, could be really scary. Japan has been trying to escape from this trap for twenty years, has repeatedly thrown huge amounts of money at it (another wave is about to be unleashed), yet after all this time they still face deflationary pressure and by any objective assessment it is now impossible for them to stop the inexorable rise of their debt, let alone pay it off. The only reason Japan hasn't collapsed is that most of the debt is held domestically and whilst the plates keep spinning no one is panicking. Plenty of economists think all this is heading for some sort of global collapse, but the truth is that this too is simply a reaction to their not understanding anything.
There are no precedents for the economic situation we are in, and basically no-one has a clue how it will end.
One of the strongest arguments against Brexit was that another unexpected shock was the last thing the global economy needed. I think a lot of the top politicians understand this all too well - hence all the 'project fear' stuff - but since they are supposed to be in charge, they could hardly tell the whole story since it would mean admitting we are all in a big mess and no-one knows how to escape!
Well said. I voted Leave while clutching my lucky rabbit's foot and clenching a four leaf clover between my teeth. Many, if not most Brexiteers voted in ignorance of the risks. I don't have that excuse.
My view is that the opportunity to Brexit may not have arisen at a different time, so the chance is worth taking.
One of my Labour councillors, who is very close to our MP, yesterday analysed the situation for me as "if Smith wins, the problem is solved". I wonder how prevalent this view is among Non-Corby Labour politicians? For it seems remarkably short sighted to me.
Firstly, apart from being not-Corbyn, it cannot be clear even to Labour insiders what Smith actually is. The assumption he will be hugely better seems rash; he may just turn out bad in other ways?
Secondly, as far as I can see Smith is standing on pretty much the same platform as Corbyn, give or take? He may be a bit smoother and less shambolic at putting it across, but will still be offering a left wing programme that much of the public don't want, and will still get monstered by the press. So how much will what the MPs fear - a bad GE defeat - actually improve under Smith?
And thirdly what will the reaction of the Corbyn supporters, who would take a Smith win in the crurrent circumstances as another stitch up, be? At best they might leave, reducing Labour's ground army, but surely in many places, and within the party structures, the civil war would continue, or be strengthened?
As far as I can see the current Labour establishment view is 'just get rid of Corbyn and we will worry about everything else afterward'. Which is emotion and desperation, not a strategy!
I think the councillor is basically correct. The vote is not about choosing someone to win the next GE. Instead, it's a vote about what Labour is: a party that primarily exists to win power through Parliament or a mass member protest group. If Smith wins, it's the former; if Corbyn wins it's the latter. Should Labour commit to Parliament, then everything else can be sorted out over time. If Labour rejects Parliament it says goodbye to ever being in power again.
What Labour MPs and many members fear most is not GE defeat in 2020, but permanent irrelevance. They believe that making Parliament a secondary consideration will do that. They are right. But they will lose.
I see the philosophical point - but wonder whether "lose with Smith in 2020 and Creasy or whoever takes over for 2025 plus a civil war meanwhile" really is better than "knuckle down and lose with Corbyn, then regroup under Creasy" in practice?
Clearly, now, things have gone so far that it's shit or bust. But this was the MPs choice.
A £4 enquiry to the Land Registry for the Deeds may not go amiss.
Some of the millions may have come from activities involving developing former community hostels etc into flats, through tax efficient corporate structures!
One of my Labour councillors, who is very close to our MP, yesterday analysed the situation for me as "if Smith wins, the problem is solved". I wonder how prevalent this view is among Non-Corby Labour politicians? For it seems remarkably short sighted to me.
As far as I can see the current Labour establishment view is 'just get rid of Corbyn and we will worry about everything else afterward'. Which is emotion and desperation, not a strategy!
Indeed, if Momentum mobilize to take over the CLPs and the 'moderates' do not, it really doesn't matter what happens with the leadership battle, as the 'moderates' will be deselected, leading to a new leadership contest.
My guess is that they are thinking/hoping:
- that when Smith gets in he will "do a Kinnock", and tack dramatically to the centre - that under Smith the MPs take over the party structures one way or another and expel or marginalise the left-wingers, just as Kinnock did - once the dirty work is done Smith will probably lose anyway, and there'll be another election when the ones with real ambition can emerge
My challenges would be:
- Smith's history, such as it is, suggests he is fairly left wing - being Welsh doesn't mean he was born with the same internal management skills as Kinnock - 'phoning 999 (at the age of 30!) to get an interview with a top policeman doesn't hint at great common sense or ability to foresee the consequences of his actions! - the damage already done to the party's image is real and will be difficult to recover - this time given their numbers the left-wingers won't be so easy to get rid of
The 'doing our best for Corbyn and losing' approach - now no longer available - did at least offer the prospect of a lesson from the electorate to hold against the left wingers for another generation.
I am wrong on one point - I see Guido has dug up enough on Smith to suggest he is a former Blairite, and the left-wing stuff is to just maximise his current chances.
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
Isn't there a four word limit? How would you condense that?
The party name can be as long as you like. But the registered description for use on the ballot paper is limited to six words.
Comments
The Dry-but-not-Obsessed-with-the-Gays-and-Europe New Tory Party
https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/623599685769515008
Hope that cheers you up.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107694/to-names-rp.pdf
PS I guess this applies to the name on the ballot paper, but it is a little ambiguous
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36852365
Firstly, apart from being not-Corbyn, it cannot be clear even to Labour insiders what Smith actually is. The assumption he will be hugely better seems rash; he may just turn out bad in other ways?
Secondly, as far as I can see Smith is standing on pretty much the same platform as Corbyn, give or take? He may be a bit smoother and less shambolic at putting it across, but will still be offering a left wing programme that much of the public don't want, and will still get monstered by the press. So how much will what the MPs fear - a bad GE defeat - actually improve under Smith?
And thirdly what will the reaction of the Corbyn supporters, who would take a Smith win in current circumstances as another stitch up, be? At best they might leave, reducing Labour's ground army, but surely in many places, and within the party structures, the civil war would continue, or be strengthened?
As far as I can see the current Labour establishment view is 'just get rid of Corbyn and we will worry about everything else afterward'. Which is emotion and desperation, not a strategy!
Maybe that model would work for the left/centre-left in the UK: It gives the candidate a lot of room to optimize their platform for the constituency they're trying to win, and allows the parties get the advantages of a coalition without sullying each other's brands.
Southam Observer would probably work OK as a label for a candidate, as long as they're running in Southam.
What Labour MPs and many members fear most is not GE defeat in 2020, but permanent irrelevance. They believe that making Parliament a secondary consideration will do that. They are right. But they will lose.
http://www.dotcom.gi/photos/
- that when Smith gets in he will "do a Kinnock", and tack dramatically to the centre
- that under Smith the MPs take over the party structures one way or another and expel or marginalise the left-wingers, just as Kinnock did
- once the dirty work is done Smith will probably lose anyway, and there'll be another election when the ones with real ambition can emerge
My challenges would be:
- Smith's history, such as it is, suggests he is fairly left wing
- being Welsh doesn't mean he was born with the same internal management skills as Kinnock
- 'phoning 999 (at the age of 30!) to get an interview with a top policeman doesn't hint at great common sense or ability to foresee the consequences of his actions!
- the damage already done to the party's image is real and will be difficult to recover
- this time given their numbers the left-wingers won't be so easy to get rid of
The 'doing our best for Corbyn and losing' approach - now no longer available - did at least offer the prospect of a lesson from the electorate to hold against the left wingers for another generation.
Clearly, now, things have gone so far that it's shit or bust. But this was the MPs choice.
Guido did some work on that address in Shad Thames.
He says it is the home of one Jon Lansmann.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/02/peoples-momentum-promotes-our-values-with-million-pound-flat/
Bought when Mr Lansmann moved from his previous address:
http://order-order.com/2016/03/21/through-the-keyhole-lansmans-1-5-million-pad/
A £4 enquiry to the Land Registry for the Deeds may not go amiss.
Some of the millions may have come from activities involving developing former community hostels etc into flats, through tax efficient corporate structures!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12060177/The-cheerleader-for-Corbyn-who-supports-sons-schemes-to-sell-off-homeless-hostels.html
Property activities would be all of a muchness with eg Michael Meacher.
What have I missed?