Anyone who fails to acknowledge that discussions about AV are the apotheosis of PB discussions will find PB discussing AV in even more depth.
After all, Labour uses AV to elect their leaders and there's a Labour leadership contest ongoing.
AV between two contenders = FPTP.
Which means Angela Eagle didn't understand AV. She shouldn't have pulled out.
I need to do a thread to educate her.
Maybe she needs to do a thread to educate you on why, even under AV, it's better to focus all of the PLP's resource and effort behind just one candidate.
AV isn't as complicated as you seem to think it is; you're not really that brilliant for understanding it.
You need your irony meter calibrating.
Then I'll find your AV thread 'jokes' funny?
Everyone else finds them funny.
You've quite obviously believed that for some time.
Other political discussion internet fora are available.
This one's just for fans of TSE AV thread "humour"?
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
I fear the malaise is spreading...
I think the House of Commons should be chosen once a year, by lot from the electoral rolls.
Mr. Evershed, depending on the number of splitters, SDP2 could have a lot of airtime as the Official Opposition, or even in a secondary [in opposition] position.
If they're behind the SNP in numbers then things may be trickier.
As a new party you will need people on the ground delivering leaflets, canvassing and getting out the vote to win elections - rather than airtime in parliament.
I suspect there would be a core of extraparliamentary support. They'd probably have a good base of activists and certainly donors.
The Labour rebels should have watched and learned from the toppling of IDS.
Within an hour of IDS losing the vote of confidence a single contender, Michael Howard, had emerged whilst every other potential contender was backing Michael Howard and urging him to be elected unopposed.
That solves the Labour party's internal issues. They would then be massacred at the General Election. The idea that a Corbynite Labour could be largest party is an impossible dream. Or, in my case, a hideous nightmare that must never, ever happen. Of course, we don't always get what we want - ask any Remainer. Luckily, in this case, I believe the electorate are going to be with me.
Like I said earlier, wishful thinking. The only route out of this is to purge the party of the Momentum types, including Corbyn & McDonnell themselves.
Someone suggested this purge of Momentum memers from the Labour Party earlier today. Their total membership is less than 10,000. If they are all Labour Party members and they are removed, what are you going to do about the quarter a million plus members who have bought into the Corbyn ideology, how are you going to stifle and ignore their democratic rights and views?
Impose a different leader and wait for them to leave.
But the members elect the leader.. I don't think there is anything in the rules about imposing a leader!
A way out needs to be found that allows the Party to heal and allows for someone else to take over from Corbyn who is acceptable to him and his followers.
I think it has gone beyond that though, and can understand Corbyn's position when Labour members like our own @Rochdale_Pioneers make it clear it is a fight to the death.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
I fear the malaise is spreading...
I think the House of Commons should be chosen once a year, by lot from the electoral rolls.
poverty cured at a stroke as everyone secures the final salary pension delights of 1/45 salary index linked.
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
Goal difference?
It all sounds a bit like Rock Paper Scissors to me....
The Labour rebels should have watched and learned from the toppling of IDS.
Within an hour of IDS losing the vote of confidence a single contender, Michael Howard, had emerged whilst every other potential contender was backing Michael Howard and urging him to be elected unopposed.
It was so beautifully spontaneous. Ahem.
Different rules...
Smith would be leader by now under Conservative rules I think.
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
I fear the malaise is spreading...
I think the House of Commons should be chosen once a year, by lot from the electoral rolls.
poverty cured at a stroke as everyone secures the final salary pension delights of 1/45 salary index linked.
I'm holding out for helicopter money. I promise to squander it Mr Carney.
Talk of SDP2 or a Democratic Party are wide of the mark. If the existing membership had decided on a path of self-immolation then maybe. But there is a clear feeling (backed up by recent surveys) that the Labour Party has been swamped by insurgents - more than doubling its membership but so many of the new members don't believe in the Labour Party just Jeremy Corbyn.
Owen Smith can't pull out, he has to challenge Corbyn whether he wins or not. When Corbyn wins (and he will) the hate mob will move to purge the old membership and the PLP, and thats why a move against Momentum is inevitable - its sheer survival.
There is room for a realignment, with 30 or so continuity new Labour MPs joining the rump LibDems and some Cameroon Tories in a new centre party, and if the rebellion in the PLP was that small it would probably happen. But its far far bigger than that, and all these centre left MPs who have no confidence in Corbyn will not accept being branded Tories and being told to leave by new members who have been around for only a few months. They'll say this is OUR party and YOU are the coup, not us.
Why do you think anyone wants to purge the membership.
Probably all those people talking about purging either Blairites or the far left respectively, or wanting to. The MPs are out of step with the membership but they aren't alone, and plenty of people just on here have mentioned wanting to get rid of the MPs, so wanting to get rid of members who support the MPs surely follows.
Not in my view.
Mandatory reselection is critical though given the ferocity of the attacks on the Glorious Leader
Amazes me that 170,000 people are willing to join the Labour party - why don't they go the whole hog and join the Conservative Party instead...at least they'd be in Government
Anyone who fails to acknowledge that discussions about AV are the apotheosis of PB discussions will find PB discussing AV in even more depth.
After all, Labour uses AV to elect their leaders and there's a Labour leadership contest ongoing.
AV between two contenders = FPTP.
Which means Angela Eagle didn't understand AV. She shouldn't have pulled out.
I need to do a thread to educate her.
She understood it perfectly well (as I suspect you know). Spending most of the campaign arguing with Smith why they were the best one to replace Corbyn would have done neither of them any favours.
I know she did.
But you know me, any excuse to do a thread on AV....
One of these days, someone will beat you to it and write an AV opus magnum of their own.
» show previous quotes It's all to easy to play that game, without answering the accusation itself, which is all that you are doing here. "Oh! Look! He called me a racist - he can't be right!"
So, Malc, what do you think? Do you agree with Lowlander's opinion that Scottish People are superior to English people.
First off he did not say that from what I read and secondly if he did say it I would disagree totally.
Sorry, I've been away, so only just caught your comment.
Thank you for replying. I'm pleased that you would oppose any suggestion that Scottish People are superior to English people. (and vice versa, of course)
I DID interpret him as saying that, but we'll have to agree to disagree . . . as equals!
Not entirely sure Corbyn is going to have an easy victory. Split of the 25 quidders is more even and the older members are far less left wing then the newer ones who have lost their vote.
Owen Smith has the right idea and is definitely better than Eagle to challenge Corbyn. If OWen Smith brings out a couple of good ideas such as Referendum 2, he has a good chance.
The Labour rebels should have watched and learned from the toppling of IDS.
Within an hour of IDS losing the vote of confidence a single contender, Michael Howard, had emerged whilst every other potential contender was backing Michael Howard and urging him to be elected unopposed.
It was so beautifully spontaneous. Ahem.
Different rules...
Smith would be leader by now under Conservative rules I think.
We don't let the leader stand if they lose a VNC. Tories: Brer Rabbit Labour: Bucket of frogs.
Anyone who fails to acknowledge that discussions about AV are the apotheosis of PB discussions will find PB discussing AV in even more depth.
After all, Labour uses AV to elect their leaders and there's a Labour leadership contest ongoing.
AV between two contenders = FPTP.
Which means Angela Eagle didn't understand AV. She shouldn't have pulled out.
I need to do a thread to educate her.
She understood it perfectly well (as I suspect you know). Spending most of the campaign arguing with Smith why they were the best one to replace Corbyn would have done neither of them any favours.
I know she did.
But you know me, any excuse to do a thread on AV....
One of these days, someone will beat you to it and write an AV opus magnum of their own.
I've done two AV threads this year. I'm not sure I've got a third one in me.
A way out needs to be found that allows the Party to heal and allows for someone else to take over from Corbyn who is acceptable to him and his followers.
I think it has gone beyond that though, and can understand Corbyn's position when Labour members like our own @Rochdale_Pioneers make it clear it is a fight to the death.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
It really is a fight to the death. The new members are the marginalised and ignored. They have found a talisman who speaks their language and can solve all their ills. He is "Mr Brexit" - no not Boris or Farage, but Jeremy "For It Is He" Corbyn. It doesn't matter than he is a crap politician. It doesn't matter that he's one of those people great to speak to but impossible to work for. It doesn't matter that he has been coated head to foot in repel-a-voter paint which means Labour will never win an election under him. To them he is HOPE. And like any believer they will defend him against any and all attacks. So they want MPs who like them are blindly obedient to him.
Corbyn will win again. But at the same time the MPs are safe because the people who blindly support Corbyn aren't interested in the Labour Party, just Corbyn. They don't turn up to meetings, they aren't organised, they won't have the numbers to deselect MPs at the mandatory trigger ballot that they already face.
Anyone who fails to acknowledge that discussions about AV are the apotheosis of PB discussions will find PB discussing AV in even more depth.
After all, Labour uses AV to elect their leaders and there's a Labour leadership contest ongoing.
AV between two contenders = FPTP.
Which means Angela Eagle didn't understand AV. She shouldn't have pulled out.
I need to do a thread to educate her.
She understood it perfectly well (as I suspect you know). Spending most of the campaign arguing with Smith why they were the best one to replace Corbyn would have done neither of them any favours.
Eagle has damaged her political reputation forever with her behaviour over all of this.
To my mind, she had a moral and political duty to follow through with the challenge that she initiated. Smith's late entrance had nothing to do with anything other than his own cowardice. He was waiting to see the lay of the land before making his choice.
But either way, Eagle should have stayed the course. She started it. She should have finished it.
Now she looks even weaker than she did before. No courage. No backbone. And no political skill.
And these two are the best Labour could find. A coward and a weak fool. Pathetic.
I stick with my view that the Eagle floundered, although the timing of that article - a few hours before she finally declared - was not my finest moment. But the fact was that she dithered for two weeks beforehand. By delaying, once it became known that she had enough backing, she was effectively declaring herself to be a stalking horse. Which is what she then became.
Had she declared straight away, it would have shown far greater self-confidence and forced any challenger to take her on as well as Corbyn - a much tougher task, particularly if she'd kept on seeking nominations in order to put pressure on Corbyn.
Pretty obvious Labour only has one problem - the MPs.
Corbyn should get rid ASAP - trigger 150+ bye elections for November.
Would put an end to the infighting for good.
This rather misses the point that Corbyn has no say in that. It was the electorate who put those MPs into the house. He can't trigger any by-elections. They are Members of Parliament and can only leave by the usual routes - not just because Corbyn feels like a purge.
Such a shame that all 650 seats in the House of Commons are disappearing to be replaced by 600 new ones.
No such thing as an incumbent at the next GE
There'll definitely be two in Scotland (assuming Carmichael stands again), but won't be many more.
I think there were about 60 completely unchanged seats in the 1st Draft English boundary review that was cancelled in 2012.
I know that seems a surprisingly high figure but am sure it's right - eg every North Yorkshire seat was left unchanged from memory.
I didn't realise there were as many as sixty, though I do remember the N Yorks seats all being unchanged in the final version.
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
Just think of how many threads we could have one this!!!
I think you need to have a long hard look at yourself young man....
The Schulze method is interesting. It tries to find the condorcet winner in a single-seat election, which is the candidate that is most preferred pairwise to every other.
So If A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A should be the winner. Simple!
But not so fast. You can get Condorcet Cycles.
What if A is preferred to B, but B is preferred to C, yet C is preferred to A? Who should be the winner then? There is no answer.
I fear the malaise is spreading...
I think the House of Commons should be chosen once a year, by lot from the electoral rolls.
You'd have the problems they have with Jury selections on Steroids.
Interesting Mr Pioneers. Your posts are outstanding, by the way, and give a better insight into what is really going on with labour than much of what I read in the national press.
Pretty obvious Labour only has one problem - the MPs.
Corbyn should get rid ASAP - trigger 150+ bye elections for November.
Would put an end to the infighting for good.
This rather misses the point that Corbyn has no say in that. It was the electorate who put those MPs into the house. He can't trigger any by-elections. They are Members of Parliament and can only leave by the usual routes - not just because Corbyn feels like a purge.
Even if it were possible, how many of those 150 would be retained? Imagine a split Labour vote and it may turn a Tory majority of 12 into one of 30 or 40
A few months ago I bought Philip Roth's " The Plot against America " as a self indulgent, unfunny, Archremainer personal joke and virtue signalled about it on Facebook. The way the news has gone of which Turkey is just the latest it make have been accidentally precience. .
A way out needs to be found that allows the Party to heal and allows for someone else to take over from Corbyn who is acceptable to him and his followers.
I think it has gone beyond that though, and can understand Corbyn's position when Labour members like our own @Rochdale_Pioneers make it clear it is a fight to the death.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
It really is a fight to the death. The new members are the marginalised and ignored. They have found a talisman who speaks their language and can solve all their ills. He is "Mr Brexit" - no not Boris or Farage, but Jeremy "For It Is He" Corbyn. It doesn't matter than he is a crap politician. It doesn't matter that he's one of those people great to speak to but impossible to work for. It doesn't matter that he has been coated head to foot in repel-a-voter paint which means Labour will never win an election under him. To them he is HOPE. And like any believer they will defend him against any and all attacks. So they want MPs who like them are blindly obedient to him.
Corbyn will win again. But at the same time the MPs are safe because the people who blindly support Corbyn aren't interested in the Labour Party, just Corbyn. They don't turn up to meetings, they aren't organised, they won't have the numbers to deselect MPs at the mandatory trigger ballot that they already face.
There was a corbyn supporter voxpopping to Jeremy Vine yesterday, saying that it was utterly immaterial that Corbyn cannot win seats or elections, because of the example of UKIP who won the referendum despite having only one MP. It was quite eerie to hear what an obvious and sensible point he thought this was.
A way out needs to be found that allows the Party to heal and allows for someone else to take over from Corbyn who is acceptable to him and his followers.
I think it has gone beyond that though, and can understand Corbyn's position when Labour members like our own @Rochdale_Pioneers make it clear it is a fight to the death.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
It really is a fight to the death. The new members are the marginalised and ignored. They have found a talisman who speaks their language and can solve all their ills. He is "Mr Brexit" - no not Boris or Farage, but Jeremy "For It Is He" Corbyn. It doesn't matter than he is a crap politician. It doesn't matter that he's one of those people great to speak to but impossible to work for. It doesn't matter that he has been coated head to foot in repel-a-voter paint which means Labour will never win an election under him. To them he is HOPE. And like any believer they will defend him against any and all attacks. So they want MPs who like them are blindly obedient to him.
Corbyn will win again. But at the same time the MPs are safe because the people who blindly support Corbyn aren't interested in the Labour Party, just Corbyn. They don't turn up to meetings, they aren't organised, they won't have the numbers to deselect MPs at the mandatory trigger ballot that they already face.
Have they not shown the ability to organise though, through social media, when they need to? I can imagine an orchestrated deselection campaign which could be very effective.
The Labour rebels should have watched and learned from the toppling of IDS.
Within an hour of IDS losing the vote of confidence a single contender, Michael Howard, had emerged whilst every other potential contender was backing Michael Howard and urging him to be elected unopposed.
It was so beautifully spontaneous. Ahem.
Different rules...
Smith would be leader by now under Conservative rules I think.
Would he make it into the final two.
Under Tory rules, Corbyn would have been no confidenced (well, he'd never have been elected in the first place but let's leave that aside), and then candidates would have started from a clean slate. The MPs could have put something like Tom Watson v Hilary Benn to the membership. MacDonell, or whoever the continuity Corbynite candidate was, would have gone out in the final three or four.
A way out needs to be found that allows the Party to heal and allows for someone else to take over from Corbyn who is acceptable to him and his followers.
I think it has gone beyond that though, and can understand Corbyn's position when Labour members like our own @Rochdale_Pioneers make it clear it is a fight to the death.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
It really is a fight to the death. The new members are the marginalised and ignored. They have found a talisman who speaks their language and can solve all their ills. He is "Mr Brexit" - no not Boris or Farage, but Jeremy "For It Is He" Corbyn. It doesn't matter than he is a crap politician. It doesn't matter that he's one of those people great to speak to but impossible to work for. It doesn't matter that he has been coated head to foot in repel-a-voter paint which means Labour will never win an election under him. To them he is HOPE. And like any believer they will defend him against any and all attacks. So they want MPs who like them are blindly obedient to him.
Corbyn will win again. But at the same time the MPs are safe because the people who blindly support Corbyn aren't interested in the Labour Party, just Corbyn. They don't turn up to meetings, they aren't organised, they won't have the numbers to deselect MPs at the mandatory trigger ballot that they already face.
Big deal. Split off, form a new party moderate centre-left, and go on to win the General Election.
Pretty obvious Labour only has one problem - the MPs.
Corbyn should get rid ASAP - trigger 150+ bye elections for November.
Would put an end to the infighting for good.
This rather misses the point that Corbyn has no say in that. It was the electorate who put those MPs into the house. He can't trigger any by-elections. They are Members of Parliament and can only leave by the usual routes - not just because Corbyn feels like a purge.
Such a shame that all 650 seats in the House of Commons are disappearing to be replaced by 600 new ones.
No such thing as an incumbent at the next GE
There'll definitely be two in Scotland (assuming Carmichael stands again), but won't be many more.
I think there were about 60 completely unchanged seats in the 1st Draft English boundary review that was cancelled in 2012.
I know that seems a surprisingly high figure but am sure it's right - eg every North Yorkshire seat was left unchanged from memory.
I didn't realise there were as many as sixty, though I do remember the N Yorks seats all being unchanged in the final version.
There are quite a lot of mainly Tory seats that will be mostly unchanged in the forthcoming review bar the odd ward here or there.
Berks, Oxon, Surrey, Herts, W Sussex, Suffolk, Lincs, N Yorks should all keep the same number of seats Cambs + Norfolk need to be paired but keep the same combined number of seats Gloucs + S Gloucs need to be paired but keep the same combined number of seats Somerset and BANES need to be paired but keep the same combined number of seats Bedfordshire and Luton keep the same number of seats but Luton N will likely be paired with Dunstable Staffordshire and Stoke keep the same number of seats but with a chunk of the Potteries being put in a largely rural seat Bucks and MK keep the same number of seats but with a chunk of MK being put in a largely rural seat
Devon and Cornwall lose a seat between them Dorset and Wiltshire lose a seat between them E Sussex and Kent lose a seat between them Hampshire loses a seat Essex loses a seat Derbyshire loses a seat
All this ought to be manageable for the Tories though as they are big counties.
The areas with the biggest changes for the Tories will be London and Wales. Wales due to the seat reduction from 40 to 29 and London due to the large different numbers of ways of combining London boroughs and wards
It will be much harder for Lab to manage as more of their MPs will need to lose out even if there aren't deselections
The Labour rebels should have watched and learned from the toppling of IDS.
Within an hour of IDS losing the vote of confidence a single contender, Michael Howard, had emerged whilst every other potential contender was backing Michael Howard and urging him to be elected unopposed.
It was so beautifully spontaneous. Ahem.
Different rules...
Smith would be leader by now under Conservative rules I think.
Would he make it into the final two.
Under Tory rules, Corbyn would have been no confidenced (well, he'd never have been elected in the first place but let's leave that aside), and then candidates would have started from a clean slate. The MPs could have put something like Tom Watson v Hilary Benn to the membership. MacDonell, or whoever the continuity Corbynite candidate was, would have gone out in the final three or four.
Under labour rules Corbyn would never have been elected in the first place if the MPs had been doing their job!
A way out needs to be found that allows the Party to heal and allows for someone else to take over from Corbyn who is acceptable to him and his followers.
I think it has gone beyond that though, and can understand Corbyn's position when Labour members like our own @Rochdale_Pioneers make it clear it is a fight to the death.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
It really is a fight to the death. The new members are the marginalised and ignored. They have found a talisman who speaks their language and can solve all their ills. He is "Mr Brexit" - no not Boris or Farage, but Jeremy "For It Is He" Corbyn. It doesn't matter than he is a crap politician. It doesn't matter that he's one of those people great to speak to but impossible to work for. It doesn't matter that he has been coated head to foot in repel-a-voter paint which means Labour will never win an election under him. To them he is HOPE. And like any believer they will defend him against any and all attacks. So they want MPs who like them are blindly obedient to him.
Corbyn will win again. But at the same time the MPs are safe because the people who blindly support Corbyn aren't interested in the Labour Party, just Corbyn. They don't turn up to meetings, they aren't organised, they won't have the numbers to deselect MPs at the mandatory trigger ballot that they already face.
Have they not shown the ability to organise though, through social media, when they need to? I can imagine an orchestrated deselection campaign which could be very effective.
Well, kinda. Enough to target the top ten hate targets, maybe. Not enough to take control of 150 separate CLPs - the sheer numbers of organisers on the ground required gives an insulating factor to incumbent MPs.
But it would mean that the most vocal challengers to JC would find themselves on the chopping block; survival would mean silence. That sounds like a pretty horrible existence, tbh.
Have they not shown the ability to organise though, through social media, when they need to? I can imagine an orchestrated deselection campaign which could be very effective.
From what I can see they can persuade people to sign onto the Worship Bus. If the bus stops in town they can persuade them to come and see Him speak.
But thats it. The Guardian piece a day or so back interviewing CLP officers (not me BTW) noted that many complained that whilst initially excited about the explosion in membership only a handful actually show up to meetings or ever more rarely to actually do any activism.
Easy to shout and scream on facebook. Actually turning up and organising at physical meetings much harder. And if needed those of us who left the Corbyn cult (or were never in it) can rally plenty of longstanding members who have semi-retired from being active to outvote them.
A way out needs to be found that allows the Party to heal and allows for someone else to take over from Corbyn who is acceptable to him and his followers.
I think it has gone beyond that though, and can understand Corbyn's position when Labour members like our own @Rochdale_Pioneers make it clear it is a fight to the death.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
It really is a fight to the death. The new members are the marginalised and ignored. They have found a talisman who speaks their language and can solve all their ills. He is "Mr Brexit" - no not Boris or Farage, but Jeremy "For It Is He" Corbyn. It doesn't matter than he is a crap politician. It doesn't matter that he's one of those people great to speak to but impossible to work for. It doesn't matter that he has been coated head to foot in repel-a-voter paint which means Labour will never win an election under him. To them he is HOPE. And like any believer they will defend him against any and all attacks. So they want MPs who like them are blindly obedient to him.
Corbyn will win again. But at the same time the MPs are safe because the people who blindly support Corbyn aren't interested in the Labour Party, just Corbyn. They don't turn up to meetings, they aren't organised, they won't have the numbers to deselect MPs at the mandatory trigger ballot that they already face.
Have they not shown the ability to organise though, through social media, when they need to? I can imagine an orchestrated deselection campaign which could be very effective.
"Greg Hadfield, the newly-elected secretary of the Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party, said: “Momentum has not ‘taken over’ the Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party. Nearly 6,000 members of the party have taken over. Sixty six per cent voted for me and other officers. And I am proud that with other officers – to serve every single one of them by helping the deliver success in the ballot box in the coming years and months..."
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
If OWen Smith brings out a couple of good ideas such as Referendum 2, he has a good chance.
Sindy or Brexit Ref 2 ?
Brexit. The sorta things an average Labour party member cares about is inequality, human rights act, Europe...
Does the great British public like the EU enough to go through another referendum ?
No, but it hardly matters - the odds of a GE happening before we are formally out (and certainly before we declare article 50) are very small indeed. Therefore, someone can say they would like to stop us exiting and hope to pick up support from the more hardcore of the 48%, without ever having to deliver on it, unless they simultaneously offer that they intend to rejoin the EU once we have left (a prospect which is even harder to sell than justifying a second referendum on exiting).
Sure, there's a danger it looks obstructive and many Labour members will not like that, not only ones who voted Leave, but in the short term it positions as being very pro-EU, which the membership if not the voters are, if the situation deteriorates they can say I told you so, and when it comes to a GE they can say, well, it's too late as we've already declared article 50/left, but I would have stopped it, I promise. Will the anti-Tory vote, even the pro-Brexit parts, care enough that a leader said they would stop us leaving, years after it has been triggered and they never had to deliver on that promise? Or will they think it doesn't matter anymore?
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
This is a perpetual problem for the left everywhere. Socialism committed suicide. But if being left wing is not being socialist, what is it? There's a 40 year gap where the left could have been thinking about what comes after socialism, but instead decided to spend it on infighting.
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
Obviously Corbyn doesn't understand the GP system, or come to that the many other strands of private industry involved in actually delivering the NHS.
Michael Dugher There are many reasons to vote for a change of Labour leadership. Not having Diane Abbott on the radio every morning is just one of them...
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
And using drugs made by the Department of Health.
Oh wait...
The state must provide everything comrade.
I don't know if this figure being banded around on social media is correct but they are saying that private pharma companies invest £88bn into the NHS in terms of R&D and bringing new medicines. And Corbyn by the sounds of it wants that gone?
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
This is a perpetual problem for the left everywhere. Socialism committed suicide. But if being left wing is not being socialist, what is it? There's a 40 year gap where the left could have been thinking about what comes after socialism, but instead decided to spend it on infighting.
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
That's a persuasive argument, but the US shows that it's possible to have a bitterly divided two party system in the complete absence of socialism.
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
They will have to go.
With respect I don't think a November election is very likely if Theresa May makes such an announcement at the Tory Conference. Parliament would not reassemble until October 10th which would imply that the earliest possible date for Polling Day would be November 17th. However, that would require Labour to play ball with her plans which is highly unlikely if the polls remain bleak. May could then seek to engineer a No Confidence Vote which if successful would involve a delay of 14 days to ascertain whether an alternative Government could be formed. Such a scenario would take us to December 1st as earliest possible election date.Personally , I suspect that is getting too late in the year and too close to Xmas. There is also some uncertain as to what happens constitutionally if a No Confidence Vote is passed. There is a view that in such circumstances the Government would have to resign with the Leader of the Opposition invited to form a Government and who would then have 14 days to obtain a Vote of Confidence. He would fail and and an election would follow but it might mean that for the duration of the campaign he remains as the caretaker PM! Closest parrallel is what happened in December 1905 when Balfour's Tory Government resigned despite having a majority of over 100. Campbell - Bannerman took office and immediately called an election for January 1906 which produced a Liberal landslide.
"In short, the party as we know it is at a crossroads with two signs on it. One path going up a very steep mountain, on the other side of which is a second mountain before it reaches the lowlands again. It is hard, but just about navigable.
The other path appears, to the people on it, to be full of beautiful flowers and comforting animal sounds. Just before it goes off a cliff.
Oh yes, in this case there will surely be a political realignment, and the centre-left will one day rise again. But it will not be within the Labour party, that hundred-year old monolith towards which we all still feel perhaps far too much affection. Our sentimentality will not improve the lives of poor Britons.
No, in that case the party, to coin a phrase, is over. It really is that simple. You choose."
''Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez). ''
Rewind to when labour started winning seats. I wonder if much of what they were campaigning for has then now been achieved, plus a whole lot more besides.
Have they not shown the ability to organise though, through social media, when they need to? I can imagine an orchestrated deselection campaign which could be very effective.
From what I can see they can persuade people to sign onto the Worship Bus. If the bus stops in town they can persuade them to come and see Him speak.
But thats it. The Guardian piece a day or so back interviewing CLP officers (not me BTW) noted that many complained that whilst initially excited about the explosion in membership only a handful actually show up to meetings or ever more rarely to actually do any activism.
Easy to shout and scream on facebook. Actually turning up and organising at physical meetings much harder. And if needed those of us who left the Corbyn cult (or were never in it) can rally plenty of longstanding members who have semi-retired from being active to outvote them.
Activism like REMAIN is not a true test.
By Elections were rammed with new Activists helping weren't they
The Labour rebels should have watched and learned from the toppling of IDS.
Within an hour of IDS losing the vote of confidence a single contender, Michael Howard, had emerged whilst every other potential contender was backing Michael Howard and urging him to be elected unopposed.
It was so beautifully spontaneous. Ahem.
Different rules...
Smith would be leader by now under Conservative rules I think.
Would he make it into the final two.
Under Tory rules, Corbyn would have been no confidenced (well, he'd never have been elected in the first place but let's leave that aside), and then candidates would have started from a clean slate. The MPs could have put something like Tom Watson v Hilary Benn to the membership. MacDonell, or whoever the continuity Corbynite candidate was, would have gone out in the final three or four.
Under labour rules Corbyn would never have been elected in the first place if the MPs had been doing their job!
Well indeed. There must be a few who look ruefully back on that day.
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
This is a perpetual problem for the left everywhere. Socialism committed suicide. But if being left wing is not being socialist, what is it? There's a 40 year gap where the left could have been thinking about what comes after socialism, but instead decided to spend it on infighting.
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
There will always be a need for a liberal party to counterbalance the social conservatism of the Conservative party. Labour struggles to do this job effectively whilst simultaneously gathering in support from the wwc and ethnic minorities.
On the economy I think it is fair that, somewhere between the collapse of communism and the near-collapse of capitalism, the left has lost its way. That said, I don't think the right understand the economy, either, but since their world view is basically to let the economy get on with it, their lack of understanding doesn't matter so much.
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
They will have to go.
With respect I don't think a November election is very likely if Theresa May makes such an announcement at the Tory Conference. Parliament would not reassemble until October 10th which would imply that the earliest possible date for Polling Day would be November 17th. However, that would require Labour to play ball with her plans which is highly unlikely if the polls remain bleak. May could then seek to engineer a No Confidence Vote which if successful would involve a delay of 14 days to ascertain whether an alternative Government could be formed. Such a scenario would take us to December 1st as earliest possible election date.Personally , I suspect that is getting too late in the year and too close to Xmas. There is also some uncertain as to what happens constitutionally if a No Confidence Vote is passed. There is a view that in such circumstances the Government would have to resign with the Leader of the Opposition invited to form a Government and who would then have 14 days to obtain a Vote of Confidence. He would fail and and an election would follow but it might mean that for the duration of the campaign he remains as the caretaker PM! Closest parrallel is what happened in December 1905 when Balfour's Tory Government resigned despite having a majority of over 100. Campbell - Bannerman took office and immediately called an election for January 1906 which produced a Liberal landslide.
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
And using drugs made by the Department of Health.
Oh wait...
The state must provide everything comrade.
I don't know if this figure being banded around on social media is correct but they are saying that private pharma companies invest £88bn into the NHS in terms of R&D and bringing new medicines. And Corbyn by the sounds of it wants that gone?
Could you help me out with what a "free society" means as in "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society.."
Edit: and an "open" one and a "fair" one while we're about it pls.
Well would you prefer it if society was unfair, expensive and closed ?
One where you can post what you like on political betting without worrying about a knock on the door or a mysterious car accident. You are even allowed to ask dumb questions!
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
Obviously Corbyn doesn't understand the GP system, or come to that the many other strands of private industry involved in actually delivering the NHS.
Or maybe he would like to reform things so as to ensure that the only people working for the NHS are employed by it. No, it won't go down well. Or work.
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
This is a perpetual problem for the left everywhere. Socialism committed suicide. But if being left wing is not being socialist, what is it? There's a 40 year gap where the left could have been thinking about what comes after socialism, but instead decided to spend it on infighting.
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
There will always be a need for a liberal party to counterbalance the social conservatism of the Conservative party. Labour struggles to do this job effectively whilst simultaneously gathering in support from the wwc and ethnic minorities.
On the economy I think it is fair that, somewhere between the collapse of communism and the near-collapse of capitalism, the left has lost its way. That said, I don't think the right understand the economy, either, but since their world view is basically to let the economy get on with it, their lack of understanding doesn't matter so much.
Well of course the left also believes that the wwc consists of fluffy-bunny, socially liberal, come all ye types. Not exactly the case always, as Emily Thornberry observed, to her cost.
Lack of legal experience. Not that stopped Gove or Grayling.
Oh so it's one rule for the 2 blokes and a different one for the woman. Textbook definition of sexism. Oaf.
To be fair Charlie Falconer, it is rumoured that both Anna Soubry and Dominic Raab refused to serve under Liz Truss for those exact reasons.
She's also very young in comparison to her predecessors and younger than both Soubry (by a mile) and Raab. Some people have problems with working for youngsters. Ego.
Also known in her constituency as 'The Tory Trollop'!
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
And using drugs made by the Department of Health.
Oh wait...
The state must provide everything comrade.
I don't know if this figure being banded around on social media is correct but they are saying that private pharma companies invest £88bn into the NHS in terms of R&D and bringing new medicines. And Corbyn by the sounds of it wants that gone?
They are practically Charities.
All hail private Pharma
The government should just plain buy shares in GSK, and hold them as a silent partner. That way they'd be able to share in the successes of British R&D (They'd have also done quite well over the last year...)
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
This is a perpetual problem for the left everywhere. Socialism committed suicide. But if being left wing is not being socialist, what is it? There's a 40 year gap where the left could have been thinking about what comes after socialism, but instead decided to spend it on infighting.
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
There will always be a need for a liberal party to counterbalance the social conservatism of the Conservative party. Labour struggles to do this job effectively whilst simultaneously gathering in support from the wwc and ethnic minorities.
On the economy I think it is fair that, somewhere between the collapse of communism and the near-collapse of capitalism, the left has lost its way. That said, I don't think the right understand the economy, either, but since their world view is basically to let the economy get on with it, their lack of understanding doesn't matter so much.
Well of course the left also believes that the wwc consists of fluffy-bunny, socially liberal, come all ye types. Not exactly the case always, as Emily Thornberry observed, to her cost.
Does the left have a coherent definition of what socially liberal means these days? Was Pim Fortuyn a social liberal or a nasty pull-up-the-drawbridge reactionary in their view?
Lack of legal experience. Not that stopped Gove or Grayling.
Oh so it's one rule for the 2 blokes and a different one for the woman. Textbook definition of sexism. Oaf.
To be fair Charlie Falconer, it is rumoured that both Anna Soubry and Dominic Raab refused to serve under Liz Truss for those exact reasons.
She's also very young in comparison to her predecessors and younger than both Soubry (by a mile) and Raab. Some people have problems with working for youngsters. Ego.
Also known in her constituency as 'The Tory Trollop'!
This from the 'Turnip Taliban' of deepest Norfolk?
From what I gather there was a question about Owen Smith and Corbyn went on a rant about big pharma (presumably because Smith was a former lobbyist for Pfizer at one point).
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
And using drugs made by the Department of Health.
Oh wait...
The state must provide everything comrade.
I don't know if this figure being banded around on social media is correct but they are saying that private pharma companies invest £88bn into the NHS in terms of R&D and bringing new medicines. And Corbyn by the sounds of it wants that gone?
They are practically Charities.
All hail private Pharma
The government should just plain buy shares in GSK, and hold them as a silent partner. That way they'd be able to share in the successes of British R&D (They'd have also done quite well over the last year...)
I fully agree. Incidentally, this approach also ought to go some way to neutralising arguments about corporate profits.
Mr. M, true but it's worth recalling that the rules could've worked perfectly well, had Labour MPs not been thick as two short planks. Their role was to act as gatekeepers for the shortlist. They ignored that, to their cost.
But the real blame falls on Harriet Harman. Her maladroit response to Osborne's July Budget forcing Shadow Cabinet members to abstain on Welfare Reform caused uproar and gave Corbyn an easy path to the leadership. Had she not been so stupid Corbyn would have finished a distant 3rd place behind Burnham and Cooper.
If OWen Smith brings out a couple of good ideas such as Referendum 2, he has a good chance.
Sindy or Brexit Ref 2 ?
Brexit. The sorta things an average Labour party member cares about is inequality, human rights act, Europe...
Promising Brexit referendums for short term tactical party gain doesn't have a happy history of working out well.
It may be so but it took a few years for Cameron`s chickens to come home to roost and the task here is for Labour to survive and I can`t see that happening if Corbyn is re-elected.
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
This is a perpetual problem for the left everywhere. Socialism committed suicide. But if being left wing is not being socialist, what is it? There's a 40 year gap where the left could have been thinking about what comes after socialism, but instead decided to spend it on infighting.
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
That's a persuasive argument, but the US shows that it's possible to have a bitterly divided two party system in the complete absence of socialism.
The US is a two-party system but not a two-political philosophy one. The republicans and democrats are both institutionally corrupt, rentier, big government, establishment, elite, military industrial scams. This is why Trump co-opting the Republicans is such a shoick and why the seriously establishment Republicans like Cruz are so openly hostile. It's as if Farage waltzed in and became leader of the Tories.
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
This is a perpetual problem for the left everywhere. Socialism committed suicide. But if being left wing is not being socialist, what is it? There's a 40 year gap where the left could have been thinking about what comes after socialism, but instead decided to spend it on infighting.
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
There will always be a need for a liberal party to counterbalance the social conservatism of the Conservative party. Labour struggles to do this job effectively whilst simultaneously gathering in support from the wwc and ethnic minorities.
On the economy I think it is fair that, somewhere between the collapse of communism and the near-collapse of capitalism, the left has lost its way. That said, I don't think the right understand the economy, either, but since their world view is basically to let the economy get on with it, their lack of understanding doesn't matter so much.
Well of course the left also believes that the wwc consists of fluffy-bunny, socially liberal, come all ye types. Not exactly the case always, as Emily Thornberry observed, to her cost.
Does the left have a coherent definition of what socially liberal means these days? Was Pim Fortuyn a social liberal or a nasty pull-up-the-drawbridge reactionary in their view?
I think that was why the Islingtonati loved the film Pride so much. It illustrated to them that even hard-nosed (whisper it: prejudiced) horny handed sons of the toil have a heart of gold if only it is allowed free rein.
And of course I'm sure that is the case very often. But not always.
Comments
http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-suspends-european-convention-on-human-rights/a-19416857
If they're third, of opposition parties, then lack of airtime will make it harder to get activists to jump ship.
Within an hour of IDS losing the vote of confidence a single contender, Michael Howard, had emerged whilst every other potential contender was backing Michael Howard and urging him to be elected unopposed.
It was so beautifully spontaneous. Ahem.
Personally I think taking a beating as a unified party to around 200 seats in 2020 might have been the best course but that is probably a best case scenario now.
Smith would be leader by now under Conservative rules I think.
Mandatory reselection is critical though given the ferocity of the attacks on the Glorious Leader
Thank you for replying. I'm pleased that you would oppose any suggestion that Scottish People are superior to English people. (and vice versa, of course)
I DID interpret him as saying that, but we'll have to agree to disagree . . . as equals!
Owen Smith has the right idea and is definitely better than Eagle to challenge Corbyn. If OWen Smith brings out a couple of good ideas such as Referendum 2, he has a good chance.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/video/2016/jul/21/minnesota-goalkeeper-scores-own-goal-against-bournemouth-video
1. Is he Scottish?
2. How much are Liverpool paying for him?
Winter for Toby
Corbyn will win again. But at the same time the MPs are safe because the people who blindly support Corbyn aren't interested in the Labour Party, just Corbyn. They don't turn up to meetings, they aren't organised, they won't have the numbers to deselect MPs at the mandatory trigger ballot that they already face.
Had she declared straight away, it would have shown far greater self-confidence and forced any challenger to take her on as well as Corbyn - a much tougher task, particularly if she'd kept on seeking nominations in order to put pressure on Corbyn.
Buy the jewels in the crown of British business whilst you can u r likely to make a profit, going to buy shares in GKN PLC.
Jeremy Corbyn should be careful what he says about the pharmaceutical industry. It employs 1000s of Unite members http://www.unitetheunion.org/how-we-help/list-of-sectors/chemicals-pharmaceuticals-process-and-textiles/ …
Intellectually Superiority is his Forte
Interesting Mr Pioneers. Your posts are outstanding, by the way, and give a better insight into what is really going on with labour than much of what I read in the national press.
Another feather in PB's cap.
Extolling the virtues of Glaxo and Astra ?
Under Tory rules, Corbyn would have been no confidenced (well, he'd never have been elected in the first place but let's leave that aside), and then candidates would have started from a clean slate. The MPs could have put something like Tom Watson v Hilary Benn to the membership. MacDonell, or whoever the continuity Corbynite candidate was, would have gone out in the final three or four.
Berks, Oxon, Surrey, Herts, W Sussex, Suffolk, Lincs, N Yorks should all keep the same number of seats
Cambs + Norfolk need to be paired but keep the same combined number of seats
Gloucs + S Gloucs need to be paired but keep the same combined number of seats
Somerset and BANES need to be paired but keep the same combined number of seats
Bedfordshire and Luton keep the same number of seats but Luton N will likely be paired with Dunstable
Staffordshire and Stoke keep the same number of seats but with a chunk of the Potteries being put in a largely rural seat
Bucks and MK keep the same number of seats but with a chunk of MK being put in a largely rural seat
Devon and Cornwall lose a seat between them
Dorset and Wiltshire lose a seat between them
E Sussex and Kent lose a seat between them
Hampshire loses a seat
Essex loses a seat
Derbyshire loses a seat
All this ought to be manageable for the Tories though as they are big counties.
The areas with the biggest changes for the Tories will be London and Wales. Wales due to the seat reduction from 40 to 29 and London due to the large different numbers of ways of combining London boroughs and wards
It will be much harder for Lab to manage as more of their MPs will need to lose out even if there aren't deselections
But it would mean that the most vocal challengers to JC would find themselves on the chopping block; survival would mean silence. That sounds like a pretty horrible existence, tbh.
But thats it. The Guardian piece a day or so back interviewing CLP officers (not me BTW) noted that many complained that whilst initially excited about the explosion in membership only a handful actually show up to meetings or ever more rarely to actually do any activism.
Easy to shout and scream on facebook. Actually turning up and organising at physical meetings much harder. And if needed those of us who left the Corbyn cult (or were never in it) can rally plenty of longstanding members who have semi-retired from being active to outvote them.
"Greg Hadfield, the newly-elected secretary of the Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party, said: “Momentum has not ‘taken over’ the Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party. Nearly 6,000 members of the party have taken over. Sixty six per cent voted for me and other officers. And I am proud that with other officers – to serve every single one of them by helping the deliver success in the ballot box in the coming years and months..."
"‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’"
Sure, there's a danger it looks obstructive and many Labour members will not like that, not only ones who voted Leave, but in the short term it positions as being very pro-EU, which the membership if not the voters are, if the situation deteriorates they can say I told you so, and when it comes to a GE they can say, well, it's too late as we've already declared article 50/left, but I would have stopped it, I promise. Will the anti-Tory vote, even the pro-Brexit parts, care enough that a leader said they would stop us leaving, years after it has been triggered and they never had to deliver on that promise? Or will they think it doesn't matter anymore?
The MPs’ vote of no confidence in Corbyn doesn’t make me nervous because those politicians have never represented me. They have always been ineffective and Corbyn does a much better job of explaining what he believes in than them.
Absolutely right. It is Lab's May 7 2015 10.01 problem. What is it that distinguishes them from the Cons apart from being "nicer" (ho ho)? For too many people - that student nurse included - the two main political parties were no different.
Now, I think there is absolutely a need for a centre-left political party that is not the Conservative Party. But Lab politicians have been woeful in explaining just what it should look like, or what it should believe in.
Oh wait...
Hmmm might explain a lot.........
There's always the lib dems....
Maybe there *isn't* a need for a centre left party. Maybe the left as we know it died with socialism, and they're just too pig-headed to realise (I'm looking at you Jez).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/07/21/justice-department-sues-to-block-anthem-acquisition-of-cigna/
There are many reasons to vote for a change of Labour leadership. Not having Diane Abbott on the radio every morning is just one of them...
I don't know if this figure being banded around on social media is correct but they are saying that private pharma companies invest £88bn into the NHS in terms of R&D and bringing new medicines. And Corbyn by the sounds of it wants that gone?
Could you help me out with what a "free society" means as in "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society.."
Edit: and an "open" one and a "fair" one while we're about it pls.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/20/labour-at-the-crossroads/#more-20979
"In short, the party as we know it is at a crossroads with two signs on it. One path going up a very steep mountain, on the other side of which is a second mountain before it reaches the lowlands again. It is hard, but just about navigable.
The other path appears, to the people on it, to be full of beautiful flowers and comforting animal sounds. Just before it goes off a cliff.
Oh yes, in this case there will surely be a political realignment, and the centre-left will one day rise again. But it will not be within the Labour party, that hundred-year old monolith towards which we all still feel perhaps far too much affection. Our sentimentality will not improve the lives of poor Britons.
No, in that case the party, to coin a phrase, is over. It really is that simple. You choose."
Rewind to when labour started winning seats. I wonder if much of what they were campaigning for has then now been achieved, plus a whole lot more besides.
By Elections were rammed with new Activists helping weren't they
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/756151554701455360\
The Brexit shelter I built will not be wasted. I will need it for the Trump Nuclear Winter...
On the economy I think it is fair that, somewhere between the collapse of communism and the near-collapse of capitalism, the left has lost its way. That said, I don't think the right understand the economy, either, but since their world view is basically to let the economy get on with it, their lack of understanding doesn't matter so much.
All hail private Pharma
https://twitter.com/JackTindale/status/755527484683259904
And of course I'm sure that is the case very often. But not always.