Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Again it will be lost deposits galore.
It will be debatable if they would elect more MP's in the next GE than the LD have now, realistically they could end up with zero.
I have the distinct feeling that Paddy Ashdown is advising them, only he is such a disaster with political strategy (persuading the LD to select Clegg, going into coalition, sticking with the coalition, strategist on the AV referendum, strategist on the EU referendum, strategist of the 2015 GE LD campaign).
I don't think that would follow . If the leader of the breahaway group did become Opposition Leader he would receive the media attention that goes with the post whilst Corbyn as Leader of the third party would fade into the background . There would even be some possibility of the residual official Corbyn -led Labour Party gradually losing its MPs to the new group and becoming perceived as little more than a 'rump'. Under such circumstances some of the big unions might switch alleigance too. I am not predicting any of this by the way , but perhaps it should not be totally dismissed as a possible scenario!
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
"It is especially associated with the public degradation of disgraced military officers. Prior to World War I this aspect of cashiering sometimes involved a parade-ground ceremony in front of assembled troops with the destruction of symbols of status: epaulettes ripped off shoulders, badges and insignia stripped, swords broken, caps knocked away, and medals torn off and dashed upon the ground.
The term originated in the era when British Army officers generally bought their commissions; being cashiered meant that the amount they had paid was lost, as they could not "sell-out" afterwards.[1] Essentially, the commission purchase price was a cash bond for good behaviour, forfeited to the Army's cashiers (accountants) in the event of cowardice, desertion or gross misbehaviour.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
That makes sense. Don’t suppose you know if this would set a precedent in modern politics?
To recap the desperation and stupidity of the so called "Labour rebels, or moderates":
1.They announced that they will try to depose Jeremy Corbyn even before voting started.
2.Hilary Benn believed he could make JC disappear by plotting, then getting himself fired , it failed.
3.The shadow cabinet PLPs, outraged about that failure, stepped down in an orchestrated move, one at a time every hour, believing this could make JC disappear, it failed.
4.More than a hundred PLPs followed suit, believing that sheer numbers will bring JC down, it failed.
5.Having failed, they tried to stop him by misinterpreting Labour rules and having him seek 50 PLP to "allow" him to fight a leadership challenge, it failed.
6.Even a former Labour donor chipped in, and challenged the NEC's ruling about JC having a right to be on the ballot as incumbent of a leadership challenge, it failed.
7. Now they claim they will form a new party to beat JC, it will fail, because no one votes for a backstabber (ask Michael Gove).
Every step that they did has delegitimatized them and set them further away from their goal of defeating Corbyn, in their last step they made it clear that their war is now against the entire Labour party not just Corbyn.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
That makes sense. Don’t suppose you know if this would set a precedent in modern politics?
Hardly a precedent, This is what the SDP did back in 1981.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
Mr. M., Fair points, I am not convinced by your last paragraph though. Purchase was indeed the norm in the Army during the Napoleonic war, up to Colonelcy. However the performance of the Army during that war was far from disgraceful. We did actually win and the defeats we had along the way were the fault of the high command and decisions made by civilians in London, i.e. nothing to do with Purchase.
It is interesting to compare the situation in the army with that of the RN of the period. In the RN, as I am sure you are aware, there was no purchase but a huge amount of nepotism. Promotion in the RN (once one had passed the examination for lieutenant) was almost entirely based on who one knew and/or if your admiral liked you. Yet the RN was the most successful navy on the planet.
Later on in the nineteenth century both the army and the navy moved onto meritocratic systems of recruitment and promotion. Yet the relative performance of both seemed not to change one whit.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
That makes sense. Don’t suppose you know if this would set a precedent in modern politics?
Hardly a precedent, This is what the SDP did back in 1981.
True enough, but that was just 4 MPs, I was thinking along the lines of a much larger group attempting to rest power from an official opposition party, which I believe is their goal.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
That makes sense. Don’t suppose you know if this would set a precedent in modern politics?
Hardly a precedent, This is what the SDP did back in 1981.
True enough, but that was just 4 MPs, I was thinking along the lines of a much larger group attempting to rest power from an official opposition party.
Not at all - in the course of 1981 circa 25 Labour MPs and 1 Tory MP broke away to form the SDP!
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
That makes sense. Don’t suppose you know if this would set a precedent in modern politics?
Hardly a precedent, This is what the SDP did back in 1981.
True enough, but that was just 4 MPs, I was thinking along the lines of a much larger group attempting to rest power from an official opposition party, which I believe is their goal.
Given their actions to date, I simply cannot believe enough of them seriously have the stones to try something like that.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
If they are seriously contemplating legal action to try to get the Labour name - accepting they cannot convince the membership to reflect their version of what Labour is but also unwilling to leave - then they will have crossed over from understandable defiance or obstruction, to irrationality.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
That makes sense. Don’t suppose you know if this would set a precedent in modern politics?
Hardly a precedent, This is what the SDP did back in 1981.
True enough, but that was just 4 MPs, I was thinking along the lines of a much larger group attempting to rest power from an official opposition party.
Not at all - in the course of 1981 circa 25 Labour MPs and 1 Tory MP broke away to form the SDP!
The only proper answer to this:
Good luck Tristram in getting elected in your seat, we will always not miss you.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Indeed - but as the Official Opposition they would get more media coverage than the Labour Party possibly reduced to a rump. That would be likely to make some impression on public opinion - though probably not on the scale of the 45 - 50% Gallup poll ratings enjoyed by the SDP back in 1981.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
Why should it Mr. St. Clare? Is there some rule that says the Labour party must exist and must be a party with large representation in Parliament? Could it not just collapse into political irrelevance? After all the society that called the Labour Party into existence and saw it blossom has gone, why should the Party continue?
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
If they are seriously contemplating legal action to try to get the Labour name - accepting they cannot convince the membership to reflect their version of what Labour is but also unwilling to leave - then they will have crossed over from understandable defiance or obstruction, to irrationality.
I don't see how they could possibly succeed in getting the Labour name - any more than the SDP could have run off with it back in 1981!
To recap the desperation and stupidity of the so called "Labour rebels, or moderates":
1.They announced that they will try to depose Jeremy Corbyn even before voting started.
2.Hilary Benn believed he could make JC disappear by plotting, then getting himself fired , it failed.
3.The shadow cabinet PLPs, outraged about that failure, stepped down in an orchestrated move, one at a time every hour, believing this could make JC disappear, it failed.
4.More than a hundred PLPs followed suit, believing that sheer numbers will bring JC down, it failed.
5.Having failed, they tried to stop him by misinterpreting Labour rules and having him seek 50 PLP to "allow" him to fight a leadership challenge, it failed.
6.Even a former Labour donor chipped in, and challenged the NEC's ruling about JC having a right to be on the ballot as incumbent of a leadership challenge, it failed.
7. Now they claim they will form a new party to beat JC, it will fail, because no one votes for a backstabber (ask Michael Gove).
Every step that they did has delegitimatized them and set them further away from their goal of defeating Corbyn, in their last step they made it clear that their war is now against the entire Labour party not just Corbyn.
Agreed and every failing step strengthens the belief amongst Corbyn supporters and even those who are fairly neutral, that he has been unfairly treated. That will only strengthen his support and sympathy for him.
I would add to that list of failures, the failure to put up someone with even a smidgeon of gravitas against JC in the leadership challenge. Was Owen Goal SMith really the best they could come up with?
And I predict yet another failure when the courts rule that the cut off date was unfairly set as January 2016 in order to deny him support. They may get away with it in that it did not breach Labour Party rules, but it was certainly a breach of contract with the 130-140k members who signed up as members this year.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Indeed - but as the Official Opposition they would get more media coverage than the Labour Party possibly reduced to a rump. That would be likely to make som impression on public opinion - though probably not on the scale of the 45 - 50% Gallup poll ratings enjoyed by the SDP back in 1981.
Forget it, all the King's media and all the King's journalists can't save them from obliteration.
Owen Smith for instance has actually gone backwards with the extra publicity.
Their policies are unpopular in their seats, they are personally unpopular in their seats, and the past 2 UK wide referendums and the last GE has shown there is reduced appetite for liberalism. Also they have the stink of backstabbers, and their actions prove that they are irrational fools.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
If they are seriously contemplating legal action to try to get the Labour name - accepting they cannot convince the membership to reflect their version of what Labour is but also unwilling to leave - then they will have crossed over from understandable defiance or obstruction, to irrationality.
I don't see how they could possibly succeed in getting the Labour name - any more than the SDP could have run off with it back in 1981!
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
Why should it Mr. St. Clare? Is there some rule that says the Labour party must exist and must be a party with large representation in Parliament? Could it not just collapse into political irrelevance? After all the society that called the Labour Party into existence and saw it blossom has gone, why should the Party continue?
Because throughout all this mess millions of people will still vote for the brand.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
So May will be the longest one-term Prime Minister in history ...
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
If they are seriously contemplating legal action to try to get the Labour name - accepting they cannot convince the membership to reflect their version of what Labour is but also unwilling to leave - then they will have crossed over from understandable defiance or obstruction, to irrationality.
I don't see how they could possibly succeed in getting the Labour name - any more than the SDP could have run off with it back in 1981!
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
So far they have proved they have no plan, or strategy, or idea of what they are doing. So it's a fair guess they haven't bothered to know the rules.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Indeed - but as the Official Opposition they would get more media coverage than the Labour Party possibly reduced to a rump. That would be likely to make som impression on public opinion - though probably not on the scale of the 45 - 50% Gallup poll ratings enjoyed by the SDP back in 1981.
Forget it, all the King's media and all the King's journalists can't save them from obliteration.
Owen Smith for instance has actually gone backwards with the extra publicity.
Their policies are unpopular in their seats, they are personally unpopular in their seats, and the past 2 UK wide referendums and the last GE has shown there is reduced appetite for liberalism. Also they have the stink of backstabbers, and their actions prove that they are irrational fools.
This week's Evening Standard did show Owen Smith ahead of Corbyn with the general public. 2015 Labour voters gave him 40% to Corbyn's 60%. 40% is not that bad for a guy whose name was largely unknown 2 weeks ago to non-political anoraks.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
Why should it Mr. St. Clare? Is there some rule that says the Labour party must exist and must be a party with large representation in Parliament? Could it not just collapse into political irrelevance? After all the society that called the Labour Party into existence and saw it blossom has gone, why should the Party continue?
There are no hard and fast rules Mr Llama, but nostalgia and brand recognition will play its part imho, afterall you can still buy Camp Coffee.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Indeed - but as the Official Opposition they would get more media coverage than the Labour Party possibly reduced to a rump. That would be likely to make som impression on public opinion - though probably not on the scale of the 45 - 50% Gallup poll ratings enjoyed by the SDP back in 1981.
Forget it, all the King's media and all the King's journalists can't save them from obliteration.
Owen Smith for instance has actually gone backwards with the extra publicity.
Their policies are unpopular in their seats, they are personally unpopular in their seats, and the past 2 UK wide referendums and the last GE has shown there is reduced appetite for liberalism. Also they have the stink of backstabbers, and their actions prove that they are irrational fools.
This week's Evening Standard did show Owen Smith ahead of Corbyn with the general public. 2015 Labour voters gave him 40% to Corbyn's 60%. 40% is not that bad for a guy whose name was largely unknown 2 weeks ago to non-political anoraks.
He's actually fallen backwards. And that's the point, the more people know Smith the less they like him.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
Mr. M., Fair points, I am not convinced by your last paragraph though. Purchase was indeed the norm in the Army during the Napoleonic war, up to Colonelcy. However the performance of the Army during that war was far from disgraceful. We did actually win and the defeats we had along the way were the fault of the high command and decisions made by civilians in London, i.e. nothing to do with Purchase.
It is interesting to compare the situation in the army with that of the RN of the period. In the RN, as I am sure you are aware, there was no purchase but a huge amount of nepotism. Promotion in the RN (once one had passed the examination for lieutenant) was almost entirely based on who one knew and/or if your admiral liked you. Yet the RN was the most successful navy on the planet.
Later on in the nineteenth century both the army and the navy moved onto meritocratic systems of recruitment and promotion. Yet the relative performance of both seemed not to change one whit.
Yes, but much more so than the army, to be an effective navy commander required a fair bit of experience. The prior experience in the heads of French navy commanders, such as it was, was largely separated from their shoulders during the revolutionary period. In such circumstances promotion on merit only took the French navy so far, and they were almost always outclassed by the British. Whereas the French army opened up its officer ranks to talented soldiers (indeed Napoleon himself would never have risen to the top under the old regime), which not only meant their junior officers were appointed on merit but also gave the whole army a significant boost in morale. This gave them an edge against the traditional monarchies who were their opponents.
As far as the British were concerned, we were lucky that Wellington (Wellesley) had talent: even so his operations in Spain and Portugal were of the harrying/rearguard and not really decisive; at Waterloo we came pretty close to losing and the campaign was ultimately decided by strength of numbers; the timely arrival of the Prussians on the battlefield and the fact that Austrian and Russian armies weren't too far away.
Despite Napoleon's fate, we should all thank him for unleashing upon the world the idea that promotion should bear some relation to ability rather than just background.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Indeed - but as the Official Opposition they would get more media coverage than the Labour Party possibly reduced to a rump. That would be likely to make som impression on public opinion - though probably not on the scale of the 45 - 50% Gallup poll ratings enjoyed by the SDP back in 1981.
Also they have the stink of backstabbers, and their actions prove that they are irrational fools.
This week's Evening Standard did show Owen Smith ahead of Corbyn with the general public. 2015 Labour voters gave him 40% to Corbyn's 60%. 40% is not that bad for a guy whose name was largely unknown 2 weeks ago to non-political anoraks.
He's actually fallen backwards. And that's the point, the more people know Smith the less they like him.
And it is a binary choice. Essentially it could be J Corbyn vs A N Other. It matters now who it is. I'm fairly interested in politics but pre him making leadership noises a few weeks ago i had never heard of him.
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
The Electoral Commission rules do not prevent a new party from incorporating the word "Labour" into its name, provided that the new name would not lead to confusion in the voting process. However, the rules do explicitly ban them from using the name of an existing party.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Fully agree. Weren't we hearing in the immediate aftermath of JC's election that the big donors had all stopped giving. That implies that there is a number of significant donors out there who would give to a party with the right set of policies and a chance of getting elected.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Fully agree. Weren't we hearing in the immediate aftermath of JC's election that the big donors had all stopped giving. That implies that there is a number of significant donors out there who would give to a party with the right set of policies and a chance of getting elected.
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
The Electoral Commission rules do not prevent a new party from incorporating the word "Labour" into its name, provided that the new name would not lead to confusion in the voting process. However, the rules do explicitly ban them from using the name of an existing party.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
All of your 'precedents' predate the establishment of the Electoral Commision and the current rules?
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
Dick Taverne managed to win Lincoln twice without Labour endorsement. Eddie Milne won Blyth in February 1974 and S.O. Davies won Merthyr Tydfil in 1970.
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
The Electoral Commission rules do not prevent a new party from incorporating the word "Labour" into its name, provided that the new name would not lead to confusion in the voting process. However, the rules do explicitly ban them from using the name of an existing party.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
All of your 'precedents' predate the establishment of the Electoral Commision and the current rules?
the Socialist Labour Party still puts up candidates - as does the I.L.P. from time to time.
OT i have experience of a Conservative ran primary selection meeting in the constituency i used to live in. A constituency that was labour since early sixties. I too was nervous about the potential for infiltration. The upper echelons seemed to think it was fine as long as it was the candidates that went through to the open selection meeting had gone through the suitable shortlisting (candidates from outside constituency had to be on A List, and local ones had to pass a few hurdles).
Probably along the principles of how Labour thought they were setting up a party leader selection process with safeguards. The safeguard was the nomination thresholds to get on the ballot.
The open selection was hosted by the local newspaper political editor, the audience certainly had activists from other parties (largely those who had long since left labour and had not yet to return).
The whole thing was a massive big bang to the start of the winning candidate's campaign. This was done three years out from the 2010 general election. Labour locally spent ages fighting off an all women shortlist when the sitting MP announced he wouldnt be restanding. The resulted in their candidate not getting selected until six months prior to the 2010 GE.
The tory candidate got a 6% swing winning the seat. Labour nationally got what they wanted this time round and ended up with an all women shortlist for 2015, the Tory MP ended up getting a further 5% tripling his majority.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
The Electoral Commission rules do not prevent a new party from incorporating the word "Labour" into its name, provided that the new name would not lead to confusion in the voting process. However, the rules do explicitly ban them from using the name of an existing party.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
All of your 'precedents' predate the establishment of the Electoral Commision and the current rules?
I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that in common law, old precedents still exist after the introduction of new law on the same matter, but do have to be interpreted in the light of the new law.
I would have thought that the precedent of those prior parties not having led to confusion in the voting process would be salient in the Commission's interpretations.
Of course, the Socialist Labour Party still exists and, as far as I know, its name has not been challenged, also a precedent.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Fully agree. Weren't we hearing in the immediate aftermath of JC's election that the big donors had all stopped giving. That implies that there is a number of significant donors out there who would give to a party with the right set of policies and a chance of getting elected.
Can anyone who is a Labour member explain to me why 160 or so moderate MPs cant just all resign the whip, explaining in a press release (that would be well received by a sympathetic media) that the party has been hijacked by entryist members, and is increasingly out of touch with the people that matter (i.e. the voters), until such time as the Leader resigns.
Or better yet, resign and whip, form a new party and become the opposition...
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
Dick Taverne managed to win Lincoln twice without Labour endorsement. Eddie Milne won Blyth in February 1974 and S.O. Davies won Merthyr Tydfil in 1970.
But they were personally popular in their seats and they had the help or the surging Liberals at the time.
I can't see any of the Labour "rebels, or moderates" being that popular in their seats and the LD are in a much dire situation than in the 70's.
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
The Electoral Commission rules do not prevent a new party from incorporating the word "Labour" into its name, provided that the new name would not lead to confusion in the voting process. However, the rules do explicitly ban them from using the name of an existing party.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
All of your 'precedents' predate the establishment of the Electoral Commision and the current rules?
I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that in common law, old precedents still exist after the introduction of new law on the same matter, but do have to be interpreted in the light of the new law.
I would have thought that the precedent of those prior parties not having led to confusion in the voting process would be salient in the Commission's interpretations.
Of course, the Socialist Labour Party still exists and, as far as I know, its name has not been challenged, also a precedent.
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
The Electoral Commission rules do not prevent a new party from incorporating the word "Labour" into its name, provided that the new name would not lead to confusion in the voting process. However, the rules do explicitly ban them from using the name of an existing party.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
All of your 'precedents' predate the establishment of the Electoral Commision and the current rules?
I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that in common law, old precedents still exist after the introduction of new law on the same matter, but do have to be interpreted in the light of the new law.
I would have thought that the precedent of those prior parties not having led to confusion in the voting process would be salient in the Commission's interpretations.
Of course, the Socialist Labour Party still exists and, as far as I know, its name has not been challenged, also a precedent.
Agreed. But I don't think these so-called precedents makes it any easier for a new breakaway group to lay claim to the "Labour" name? The rules are much tighter now and essentially prevent defectors standing as "Independent Labour"/"Conservative" or whatever.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
Ian Wrigglesworth lost Stockton South to the Tories in 1987.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
That's the point, they can't win Labour seats, only Tory ones. Pity that most of them ran in Labour seats, eh ?
Can anyone who is a Labour member explain to me why 160 or so moderate MPs cant just all resign the whip, explaining in a press release (that would be well received by a sympathetic media) that the party has been hijacked by entryist members, and is increasingly out of touch with the people that matter (i.e. the voters), until such time as the Leader resigns.
Or better yet, resign and whip, form a new party and become the opposition...
I'll be interested to see what a Labour member says, but they can't say the party has been hijacked by entryist members, because it seems most of the MPs are committed to the line that Corbyn's ideas, most of them, are just fine, it's his competence that is the problem. So the entryist people believing in Corbyn's ideas cannot also be a problem. And he won among longer term members as well.
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Surely making the election a referendum on foreign policy is the worst possible option for Hillary?
She's between a rock and a hard place on policy because if she says that Trump's protectionism will be bad for the economy she loses her left wing, yet this is precisely the position she needs to take to capture the centre.
Between Hillary and Trump:
Trump will be too busy tweeting all day to actually do any damage by governing. Hillary will be too busy doing damage by governing all day to do any tweeting.
The world can survive 4 years of Trump tweeting from the W.H., I don't think it can survive Hillary screaming to everyone to get her way for 4 years in the W.H.
Trump has said he may take the US out of NAFTA and the WTO, he has said he will build a wall with Mexico, he has refused to commit to protect the Baltic states against Russia unlike Hillary, he has said he may ban all Muslims from entering the US. He can do plenty of damage in between tweets
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership.
If the rebel MPs start trying to form a party within a party at Westminster then they will have the whip withdrawn and become independent.
A group of independent MPs in parliament has no status unless they band together as a political party and get recognition from the Speaker (and Short money).
If they form a new party then they will be doomed at the next general election.
Any suggestions for the name of the new party?
How about New Labour?
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
Once the whip is removed by Labour, they would be individual independents unless they form a new party and join it. The Speaker will not grant any rights to a bunch of individual MPs who are not part of the same registered political party.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Indeed - but as the Official Opposition they would get more media coverage than the Labour Party possibly reduced to a rump. That would be likely to make som impression on public opinion - though probably not on the scale of the 45 - 50% Gallup poll ratings enjoyed by the SDP back in 1981.
Forget it, all the King's media and all the King's journalists can't save them from obliteration.
Owen Smith for instance has actually gone backwards with the extra publicity.
Their policies are unpopular in their seats, they are per.
This week's Evening Standard did show Owen Smith ahead of Corbyn with the general public. 2015 Labour voters gave him 40% to Corbyn's 60%. 40% is not that bad for a guy whose name was largely unknown 2 weeks ago to non-political anoraks.
He's actually fallen backwards. And that's the point, the more people know Smith the less they like him.
No he has not, there had been no polling of the general public (ie the people who actually decide general elections) on Smith v Corbyn before
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
Ian Wrigglesworth lost Stockton South to the Tories in 1987.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
Ian Wrigglesworth lost Stockton South to the Tories in 1987.
He won it in 1983 though for the SDP
Yes he did - largely because the Tories had selected a former National Front member as their candidate.
It would seem a pretty remarkable achievement - I'd like to know what rules or interpretations those floating this idea think would work in their favour.
The Electoral Commission rules do not prevent a new party from incorporating the word "Labour" into its name, provided that the new name would not lead to confusion in the voting process. However, the rules do explicitly ban them from using the name of an existing party.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
All of your 'precedents' predate the establishment of the Electoral Commision and the current rules?
I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that in common law, old precedents still exist after the introduction of new law on the same matter, but do have to be interpreted in the light of the new law.
I would have thought that the precedent of those prior parties not having led to confusion in the voting process would be salient in the Commission's interpretations.
Of course, the Socialist Labour Party still exists and, as far as I know, its name has not been challenged, also a precedent.
Agreed. But I don't think these so-called precedents makes it any easier for a new breakaway group to lay claim to the "Labour" name? The rules are much tighter now and essentially prevent defectors standing as "Independent Labour"/"Conservative" or whatever.
If you read the rules on a prima facie basis, they absolutely do not prevent names such as 'Independent Labour'. They leave it to the Commission to decide whether such prefixes as 'new', 'independent' etc... would create confusion in the mind of voters and therefore affect the intended outcome of the vote.
In that, yes, I do think old precedents of actual votes taken, however dated, that demonstrate that two candidates vying for a seat with two party names both of which contain the word 'labour' in them can proceed without evident confusion or impediment to the result are relevant - unless the Commission has more recent history of nixing such a thing. I have not been following the issue closely enough to know if that is the case.
Perhaps others on here might be able to comment on whether the Commission has denied any applications based on party name and, if so, what names and on what bases.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
That's the point, they can't win Labour seats, only Tory ones. Pity that most of them ran in Labour seats, eh ?
They are not Tory seats, they are marginal seats, ie they voted for Blair and for Cameron. They are exactly the seats Labour needs to win to win a general election and Corbyn has no chance in
Mr. 83, the second series is my favourite too. That episode is probably my favourite of the lot (might be called 'Money', I forget).
It's a shame they cocked up his character in the first series. In the pilot (which has a much worse Baldrick, can be found on Youtube) he was much more like the later Blackadder. Brian Blessed was very good.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
Ian Wrigglesworth lost Stockton South to the Tories in 1987.
He won it in 1983 though for the SDP
Yes he did - largely because the Tories had selected a former National Front member as their candidate.
He only lost it by 774 votes in 1987 even when the Tories did not have a former NF member as their candidate. Wirral West would also be a target, voted for Blair, Cameron in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015 and the Liberals beat Labour in the seat in 1983. They may have a shot in Wirral South too which has a Labour MP but where the SDP beat Labour in 1983
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
Mr. M., Fair points, I am not convinced by your last paragraph though. Purchase was indeed the norm in the Army during the Napoleonic war, up to Colonelcy. However the performance of the Army during that war was far from disgraceful. We did actually win and the defeats we had along the way were the fault of the high command and decisions made by civilians in London, i.e. nothing to do with Purchase.
It is interesting to compare the situation in the army with that of the RN of the period. In the RN, as I am sure you are aware, there was no purchase but a huge amount of nepotism. Promotion in the RN (once one had passed the examination for lieutenant) was almost entirely based on who one knew and/or if your admiral liked you. Yet the RN was the most successful navy on the planet.
Later on in the nineteenth century both the army and the navy moved onto meritocratic systems of recruitment and promotion. Yet the relative performance of both seemed not to change one whit.
-snip- Despite Napoleon's fate, we should all thank him for unleashing upon the world the idea that promotion should bear some relation to ability rather than just background.
Schicklgruber vs Churchill seems not to bear your point out, in a variety of ways. As indeed does Buonaparte vs Wellesley.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
That's the point, they can't win Labour seats, only Tory ones. Pity that most of them ran in Labour seats, eh ?
They are not Tory seats, they are marginal seats, ie they voted for Blair and for Cameron. They are exactly the seats Labour needs to win to win a general election and Corbyn has no chance in
You are making the mistake of trying to reason with a Trumpite Corbynista. More fool you!
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
Mr. 83, the second series is my favourite too. That episode is probably my favourite of the lot (might be called 'Money', I forget).
It's a shame they cocked up his character in the first series. In the pilot (which has a much worse Baldrick, can be found on Youtube) he was much more like the later Blackadder. Brian Blessed was very good.
Having seen that original pilot, it baffles me why they went in such a radically different direction with the character of Blackadder - the nature of the character, the embarrassing performance, it makes it so I cannot watch the first season at all, when 2,3 and 4 are so good, and clearly that was how they originally envisaged it for the first.
It's no shock that a show sees something is not working and changed things in the next season to fix it (see Leslie Knopes in the first season of Parks and Recreation vs later much better portrayals), but Blackadder is the only case I know of where they had it right, changed it before airing, then changed back.
The bigger question is whether new party would want to call themselves Labour.
That they are going to such extreme lengths to remain in Labour or snatch the name, shows that they have an emotional need to be in 'true' Labour such that they would have to have it in the name.
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
Can anyone who is a Labour member explain to me why 160 or so moderate MPs cant just all resign the whip, explaining in a press release (that would be well received by a sympathetic media) that the party has been hijacked by entryist members, and is increasingly out of touch with the people that matter (i.e. the voters), until such time as the Leader resigns.
Or better yet, resign and whip, form a new party and become the opposition...
That's exactly what they should do Mortimer. Step 1 and then Step 2. Good post.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
That's the point, they can't win Labour seats, only Tory ones. Pity that most of them ran in Labour seats, eh ?
They are not Tory seats, they are marginal seats, ie they voted for Blair and for Cameron. They are exactly the seats Labour needs to win to win a general election and Corbyn has no chance in
You are making the mistake of trying to reason with a Trumpite Corbynista. More fool you!
Yes, I know, for true Corbynistas a real Labour seat is one which voted for Foot in 1983 and Brown in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015, any seat which voted for Thatcher and Cameron is a Tory seat and not wanted. Not surprisingly the average floating voter has therefore decided that if Labour does not want them then neither do they want Labour!
Mr. kle4, the first series still has some good stuff (perhaps especially the episode where he becomes archbishop). But you're right, the change is inexplicable. Still, easy to be wise with hindsight.
Mr. Quidder, they skewered his cat flap for want of a farthing.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
Total rubbish. Most Labour VOTERS are well to the right of Corbyn. You are confusing voters with the membership, perhaps deliberately, to suit your own prejudices.
Once Corbyn wins, the rebel MPs will need to accept his leadership. SNIP
Unless they were sufficiently numerous to become the Official Opposition with their leader as the Leader of the Opposition.
SNIP.
I fully understand that and am assuming that they would form a new Parliamentary group with its own Whips etc.
They will still be thrown out of the Labour party and will have to fend for themselves.
And that's the point, they are finished. They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
SNIP.
SNIP Also they have the stink of backstabbers, and their actions prove that they are irrational fools.
This week's Evening Standard did show Owen Smith ahead of Corbyn with the general public. SNIP
He's actually fallen backwards. And that's the point, the more people know Smith the less they like him.
Again, this is demonstrable garbage. The Standard poll was the first one showing his support among the public – so you have no evidence whatsoever to say that he has "fallen backwards". I happen to not be a huge fan of Smith, but nor am I much of fan of people who advance complete untruths about polling on betting forums.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
That's the point, they can't win Labour seats, only Tory ones. Pity that most of them ran in Labour seats, eh ?
They are not Tory seats, they are marginal seats, ie they voted for Blair and for Cameron. They are exactly the seats Labour needs to win to win a general election and Corbyn has no chance in
You are making the mistake of trying to reason with a Trumpite Corbynista. More fool you!
Yes, I know, for true Corbynistas a real Labour seat is one which voted for Foot in 1983 and Brown in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015, any seat which voted for Thatcher and Cameron is a Tory seat and not wanted. Not surprisingly the average floating voter has therefore decided that if Labour does not want them then neither do they want Labour!
Quite so. It is this deranged cultism that has taken control of the party, and threatens to destroy forever a once-great party of state.
Mr. 83, the second series is my favourite too. That episode is probably my favourite of the lot (might be called 'Money', I forget).
It's a shame they cocked up his character in the first series. In the pilot (which has a much worse Baldrick, can be found on Youtube) he was much more like the later Blackadder. Brian Blessed was very good.
Having seen that original pilot, it baffles me why they went in such a radically different direction with the character of Blackadder - the nature of the character, the embarrassing performance, it makes it so I cannot watch the first season at all, when 2,3 and 4 are so good, and clearly that was how they originally envisaged it for the first.
It's no shock that a show sees something is not working and changed things in the next season to fix it (see Leslie Knopes in the first season of Parks and Recreation vs later much better portrayals), but Blackadder is the only case I know of where they had it right, changed it before airing, then changed back.
I missed the pilot in Season 1, saw a few episodes and hated it, particularly the Blackadder character. It was about a decade and much encouragement from friends and family before I was persuaded to give subsequent seasons a chance. Glad I did. Seasons 2 and 3 were my favorites, with Queenie being the best character.
For me, it was always the performances of the supporting characters (Hugh Lawrie and Tony Robinson in particular) rather than Rowan Atkinson, that made the show.
Mr. 83, the second series is my favourite too. That episode is probably my favourite of the lot (might be called 'Money', I forget).
It's a shame they cocked up his character in the first series. In the pilot (which has a much worse Baldrick, can be found on Youtube) he was much more like the later Blackadder. Brian Blessed was very good.
Yeah Money is a brilliant episode, also the whole side plot with Percy trying to learn the mysteries of Alchemy so that he can fix Blackadder's money problems by turning things into Gold is hilarious. The dialogue and look on Blackadder's face when Percy creates a nugget of purest Green is priceless.
The two third party candidates for the US presidency in 2016 are Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green), who both ran in 2012. The Libertarians' convention has already happened; the Green one starts on Thursday 4 August. Already both candidates have attracted more online interest (on whatever metric Google Trends uses) than they did four years ago.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
That's the point, they can't win Labour seats, only Tory ones. Pity that most of them ran in Labour seats, eh ?
They are not Tory seats, they are marginal seats, ie they voted for Blair and for Cameron. They are exactly the seats Labour needs to win to win a general election and Corbyn has no chance in
You are making the mistake of trying to reason with a Trumpite Corbynista. More fool you!
Yes, I know, for true Corbynistas a real Labour seat is one which voted for Foot in 1983 and Brown in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015, any seat which voted for Thatcher and Cameron is a Tory seat and not wanted. Not surprisingly the average floating voter has therefore decided that if Labour does not want them then neither do they want Labour!
Quite so. It is this deranged cultism that has taken control of the party, and threatens to destroy forever a once-great party of state.
At the moment it is floating around the 27% Foot got in 1983 and the 29% Brown got in 2010 and as long as Corbyn is leader that will be close to its ceiling
Mr. kle4, the first series still has some good stuff (perhaps especially the episode where he becomes archbishop). But you're right, the change is inexplicable. Still, easy to be wise with hindsight.
Mr. Quidder, they skewered his cat flap for want of a farthing.
Don't know about the difference between the pilot and the rest of the first series, but the usual explanation for the difference between the first series and the rest is Ben Elton.
Mr. 83, creating a nugget of purest green was a great achievement
They nailed the well-meaning idiot aspect.
"O, Edmund! Thank God you've returned!" "Yes, I was just thinking 'My God, I die in eight hours. What I really need is a hug from a complete prat'."
Mr. T, it's an especial shame, because the on-location castle was rather splendid. The budget was slashed for the second series (which almost didn't get the go ahead) but the quality soared.
Mr. 83, the second series is my favourite too. That episode is probably my favourite of the lot (might be called 'Money', I forget).
It's a shame they cocked up his character in the first series. In the pilot (which has a much worse Baldrick, can be found on Youtube) he was much more like the later Blackadder. Brian Blessed was very good.
Having seen that original pilot, it baffles me why they went in such a radically different direction with the character of Blackadder - the nature of the character, the embarrassing performance, it makes it so I cannot watch the first season at all, when 2,3 and 4 are so good, and clearly that was how they originally envisaged it for the first.
It's no shock that a show sees something is not working and changed things in the next season to fix it (see Leslie Knopes in the first season of Parks and Recreation vs later much better portrayals), but Blackadder is the only case I know of where they had it right, changed it before airing, then changed back.
I missed the pilot in Season 1, saw a few episodes and hated it, particularly the Blackadder character. It was about a decade and much encouragement from friends and family before I was persuaded to give subsequent seasons a chance. Glad I did. Seasons 2 and 3 were my favorites, with Queenie being the best character.
For me, it was always the performances of the supporting characters (Hugh Lawrie and Tony Robinson in particular) rather than Rowan Atkinson, that made the show.
Surely the favourite episode for everyone on here has to be "Dish and Dishonesty"?
(if you can accidentally forget Corporal Punishment in series 4 of course...)
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
Question to both Robert and Max: Where do you expect sterling to settle vs US$ once all the dust of Brexit has settled? My gut instinct is in the 1.35-1.40 range.
Mr. 83, the second series is my favourite too. That episode is probably my favourite of the lot (might be called 'Money', I forget).
It's a shame they cocked up his character in the first series. In the pilot (which has a much worse Baldrick, can be found on Youtube) he was much more like the later Blackadder. Brian Blessed was very good.
Having seen that original pilot, it baffles me why they went in such a radically different direction with the character of Blackadder - the nature of the character, the embarrassing performance, it makes it so I cannot watch the first season at all, when 2,3 and 4 are so good, and clearly that was how they originally envisaged it for the first.
It's no shock that a show sees something is not working and changed things in the next season to fix it (see Leslie Knopes in the first season of Parks and Recreation vs later much better portrayals), but Blackadder is the only case I know of where they had it right, changed it before airing, then changed back.
I missed the pilot in Season 1, saw a few episodes and hated it, particularly the Blackadder character. It was about a decade and much encouragement from friends and family before I was persuaded to give subsequent seasons a chance. Glad I did. Seasons 2 and 3 were my favorites, with Queenie being the best character.
For me, it was always the performances of the supporting characters (Hugh Lawrie and Tony Robinson in particular) rather than Rowan Atkinson, that made the show.
Surely the favourite episode for everyone on here has to be "Dish and Dishonesty"?
Who doesn't love the 'standing at the back dressed stupidly and looking stupid' party (there's an open name for any new party right there)?
Love the rotten borough stuff. 1 voter, 16472 votes, a slight anomaly? Not at all.
'Head' is a good one though.
Melchett:: The Lord High Executioner is dead Blackadder: Oh, woe. Murdered, of course. Melchett: Oddly enough, no. They usually are, but this one just got careless one night and signed his name on the wrong dotted line. They came for him while he slept. Blackadder: He should have told them they had the wrong man. Melchett:He did, but you see they didn't. They had the right man and they had the form to prove it.
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
Question to both Robert and Max: Where do you expect sterling to settle vs US$ once all the dust of Brexit has settled? My gut instinct is in the 1.35-1.40 range.
This begs the question of when will the Brexit dust settle?
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
Question to both Robert and Max: Where do you expect sterling to settle vs US$ once all the dust of Brexit has settled? My gut instinct is in the 1.35-1.40 range.
I'm no currency trader but I think we're looking at 1.37-1.40 once the question of our EU relationship has been answered. Even if it is an unfavourable settlement having some certainty will see a small recovery. We won't be back to 1.50-1.60 for a few years, maybe even up to a decade because the UK economy is unbalanced, Brexit has exposed it rather than created it.
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
Question to both Robert and Max: Where do you expect sterling to settle vs US$ once all the dust of Brexit has settled? My gut instinct is in the 1.35-1.40 range.
I'm no currency trader but I think we're looking at 1.37-1.40 once the question of our EU relationship has been answered. Even if it is an unfavourable settlement having some certainty will see a small recovery. We won't be back to 1.50-1.60 for a few years, maybe even up to a decade because the UK economy is unbalanced, Brexit has exposed it rather than created it.
I think you aren't factoring in Donald Trump deciding to default on the US National debt...
Comments
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
I am not predicting any of this by the way , but perhaps it should not be totally dismissed as a possible scenario!
The present government derives it's political mandate from the referendum result, instead of the last GE result.
Bloody ot not, it certainly wasn't a coup.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
Still more gentle than anything from the 15th century though...
"It is especially associated with the public degradation of disgraced military officers. Prior to World War I this aspect of cashiering sometimes involved a parade-ground ceremony in front of assembled troops with the destruction of symbols of status: epaulettes ripped off shoulders, badges and insignia stripped, swords broken, caps knocked away, and medals torn off and dashed upon the ground.
The term originated in the era when British Army officers generally bought their commissions; being cashiered meant that the amount they had paid was lost, as they could not "sell-out" afterwards.[1] Essentially, the commission purchase price was a cash bond for good behaviour, forfeited to the Army's cashiers (accountants) in the event of cowardice, desertion or gross misbehaviour.
1.They announced that they will try to depose Jeremy Corbyn even before voting started.
2.Hilary Benn believed he could make JC disappear by plotting, then getting himself fired , it failed.
3.The shadow cabinet PLPs, outraged about that failure, stepped down in an orchestrated move, one at a time every hour, believing this could make JC disappear, it failed.
4.More than a hundred PLPs followed suit, believing that sheer numbers will bring JC down, it failed.
5.Having failed, they tried to stop him by misinterpreting Labour rules and having him seek 50 PLP to "allow" him to fight a leadership challenge, it failed.
6.Even a former Labour donor chipped in, and challenged the NEC's ruling about JC having a right to be on the ballot as incumbent of a leadership challenge, it failed.
7. Now they claim they will form a new party to beat JC, it will fail, because no one votes for a backstabber (ask Michael Gove).
Every step that they did has delegitimatized them and set them further away from their goal of defeating Corbyn, in their last step they made it clear that their war is now against the entire Labour party not just Corbyn.
It is interesting to compare the situation in the army with that of the RN of the period. In the RN, as I am sure you are aware, there was no purchase but a huge amount of nepotism. Promotion in the RN (once one had passed the examination for lieutenant) was almost entirely based on who one knew and/or if your admiral liked you. Yet the RN was the most successful navy on the planet.
Later on in the nineteenth century both the army and the navy moved onto meritocratic systems of recruitment and promotion. Yet the relative performance of both seemed not to change one whit.
And that's the point, they are finished.
They are donkey's with red rosettes, without the red rosettes they are only donkey's, no one will vote for them.
They have done everything possible to infuriate their own voters with their selfish conduct.
Good luck Tristram in getting elected in your seat, we will always not miss you.
I would add to that list of failures, the failure to put up someone with even a smidgeon of gravitas against JC in the leadership challenge. Was Owen Goal SMith really the best they could come up with?
And I predict yet another failure when the courts rule that the cut off date was unfairly set as January 2016 in order to deny him support. They may get away with it in that it did not breach Labour Party rules, but it was certainly a breach of contract with the 130-140k members who signed up as members this year.
Owen Smith for instance has actually gone backwards with the extra publicity.
Their policies are unpopular in their seats, they are personally unpopular in their seats, and the past 2 UK wide referendums and the last GE has shown there is reduced appetite for liberalism.
Also they have the stink of backstabbers, and their actions prove that they are irrational fools.
So it's a fair guess they haven't bothered to know the rules.
And that's the point, the more people know Smith the less they like him.
As far as the British were concerned, we were lucky that Wellington (Wellesley) had talent: even so his operations in Spain and Portugal were of the harrying/rearguard and not really decisive; at Waterloo we came pretty close to losing and the campaign was ultimately decided by strength of numbers; the timely arrival of the Prussians on the battlefield and the fact that Austrian and Russian armies weren't too far away.
Despite Napoleon's fate, we should all thank him for unleashing upon the world the idea that promotion should bear some relation to ability rather than just background.
As precedents, we have had Dick Taverne with his Democratic Labour, Dave Church with the Democratic Labour Party, the wildly successful (not) Moderate Labour Party, the National and Democratic Labour Party, and Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
So presumably, in order to take the Labour brand, the rebels would have to prove to a court that they, rather than the membership, are the rightful 'owners' of the party. Seems an impossible task to me.
So, variations on The People's Front of Judea, anyone?
Just about to start writing the pre-race piece, thought it'll probably be some time before the markets wake up properly.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
Probably along the principles of how Labour thought they were setting up a party leader selection process with safeguards. The safeguard was the nomination thresholds to get on the ballot.
The open selection was hosted by the local newspaper political editor, the audience certainly had activists from other parties (largely those who had long since left labour and had not yet to return).
The whole thing was a massive big bang to the start of the winning candidate's campaign. This was done three years out from the 2010 general election. Labour locally spent ages fighting off an all women shortlist when the sitting MP announced he wouldnt be restanding. The resulted in their candidate not getting selected until six months prior to the 2010 GE.
The tory candidate got a 6% swing winning the seat. Labour nationally got what they wanted this time round and ended up with an all women shortlist for 2015, the Tory MP ended up getting a further 5% tripling his majority.
I would have thought that the precedent of those prior parties not having led to confusion in the voting process would be salient in the Commission's interpretations.
Of course, the Socialist Labour Party still exists and, as far as I know, its name has not been challenged, also a precedent.
That's about as believable as a little tipple before evensong being the only vice of the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Or better yet, resign and whip, form a new party and become the opposition...
I can't see any of the Labour "rebels, or moderates" being that popular in their seats and the LD are in a much dire situation than in the 70's.
Pity that most of them ran in Labour seats, eh ?
In that, yes, I do think old precedents of actual votes taken, however dated, that demonstrate that two candidates vying for a seat with two party names both of which contain the word 'labour' in them can proceed without evident confusion or impediment to the result are relevant - unless the Commission has more recent history of nixing such a thing. I have not been following the issue closely enough to know if that is the case.
Perhaps others on here might be able to comment on whether the Commission has denied any applications based on party name and, if so, what names and on what bases.
https://twitter.com/TechnoGuido/status/759383480014962688
It's a shame they cocked up his character in the first series. In the pilot (which has a much worse Baldrick, can be found on Youtube) he was much more like the later Blackadder. Brian Blessed was very good.
"Have you ever considered a career in the Church?"
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
It's no shock that a show sees something is not working and changed things in the next season to fix it (see Leslie Knopes in the first season of Parks and Recreation vs later much better portrayals), but Blackadder is the only case I know of where they had it right, changed it before airing, then changed back.
That's exactly what they should do Mortimer. Step 1 and then Step 2. Good post.
Mr. Quidder, they skewered his cat flap for want of a farthing.
For me, it was always the performances of the supporting characters (Hugh Lawrie and Tony Robinson in particular) rather than Rowan Atkinson, that made the show.
They nailed the well-meaning idiot aspect.
"O, Edmund! Thank God you've returned!"
"Yes, I was just thinking 'My God, I die in eight hours. What I really need is a hug from a complete prat'."
Mr. T, it's an especial shame, because the on-location castle was rather splendid. The budget was slashed for the second series (which almost didn't get the go ahead) but the quality soared.
(if you can accidentally forget Corporal Punishment in series 4 of course...)
Love the rotten borough stuff. 1 voter, 16472 votes, a slight anomaly? Not at all.
'Head' is a good one though.
Melchett:: The Lord High Executioner is dead
Blackadder: Oh, woe. Murdered, of course.
Melchett: Oddly enough, no. They usually are, but this one just got careless one night and signed his name on the wrong dotted line. They came for him while he slept.
Blackadder: He should have told them they had the wrong man.
Melchett:He did, but you see they didn't. They had the right man and they had the form to prove it.
I do wonder if a line about a minister in charge of religious genocide would get the green light today, though.