politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Parliamentary pain is not just bad for Labour, but

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Parliamentary pain is not just bad for Labour, but for the country as a whole

Today’s Daily Telegraph ran an intriguing piece about plans being hatched by some Labour MPs if, as expected, Jeremy Corbyn wins the party’s leadership election in September.

Read the full story here

adamandcat

Unlike Labour

grabcocque

Sorry, Labour are not the "main opposition party" unless you mean they're opposed to themselves.

BigIan

grabcocque said:

Sorry, Labour are not the "main opposition party" unless you mean they're opposed to themselves.

As in Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

kle4

Something will indeed have to give - my money is on the PLP, as I do think a Corbyn victory will resolve the impasse for some of them at least, as they will give up. That will settle things until a predicted loss, then healing can begin.

In the meantime, what choice do we have other than to hope the tories can restrict themselves. That narrow majority is probably helping right now.

AnneJGP

Thanks, Joff, another interesting article.

One wonders why people who don't believe "Parliament to be a means through which to secure significnt change" would bother to spend their lives as MPs.

Just a convenient way of earning a crust & obtaining a platform? Presumably their performances as constituency MPs are at least adequate & fit for purpose, or they wouldn't keep getting elected.

And good afternoon/evening, everyone.

Morris_Dancer

On-topic: I do enjoy Mr. Wild's articles.

I agree entirely with the charge that, short of a functioning opposition, the Government will be complacent, arrogant and not held to account. Labour's MPs' idiocy in putting Corbyn on the ballot to start with was not merely dereliction of duty to party, but country.

As for their hokey-cokey approach: it seems doomed to failure. They need to either submit to Corbyn or grow some balls and leave. It's no use falling in love with the name of Labour and [seemingly] abandoning all hope of winning the next election.

FPT: Mr. T, an ancestor of the (short-lived) Emperor Galba, whilst campaigning, I think in Gaul, ordered a unit that he deemed worthy of punishment, to go woodcutting on a hilltop infested by the enemy.

As it was suicidal, other units voluntarily went out to protect the victimised unit. Upon their return, they heaped the gathered wood around Galba's tent and set it on fire.

DanSmith

If the far left don't think parliament matters, why are they so insistent on running the Labour party?

SandyRentool

So Labour Party members who are better off under a Tory government support a Labour leader who maximises the chances of a Tory government.

Also, it is not so much "Workers of the world unite", more "Workers of the UK get off your backsides and get involved".

kle4

DanSmith said:

If the far left don't think parliament matters, why are they so insistent on running the Labour party?

In order to not make parliament matter as much, first you need to take control and limit the power of the parliamentary party.

rottenborough

kle4 said:

Something will indeed have to give - my money is on the PLP, as I do think a Corbyn victory will resolve the impasse for some of them at least, as they will give up. That will settle things until a predicted loss, then healing can begin.

In the meantime, what choice do we have other than to hope the tories can restrict themselves. That narrow majority is probably helping right now.

This Telegraph piece sounds like someone shooting their mouth off after a two bottle lunch or simply flying a kite. I can't see it really happening. I think PLP will mostly pipe down and keep their heads down for another year and see if something turns up.

kle4

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Something will indeed have to give - my money is on the PLP, as I do think a Corbyn victory will resolve the impasse for some of them at least, as they will give up. That will settle things until a predicted loss, then healing can begin.

In the meantime, what choice do we have other than to hope the tories can restrict themselves. That narrow majority is probably helping right now.

This Telegraph piece sounds like someone shooting their mouth off after a two bottle lunch or simply flying a kite. I can't see it really happening. I think PLP will mostly pipe down and keep their heads down for another year and see if something turns up.

Agreed. Every step of the way has been reluctant, searching for a way out. The temptation to see what might come up later, rather than take the nuclear option, will be immense.

CD13

Labour decided to sup with the Devil. They're gonna need a bigger spoon.

Jezza knows he's right in everything, so why should he ever give up? It's always the other fella's fault.

He'll be re-elected, then the Erdogan purge will begin.

foxinsoxuk

Good header SO. In other words: I agree!

One does wonder why Corbyn and McDonnell are so keen on holding onto the leadership in parliament, if they tbink it is largely irrelevant to the Peoples Struggle.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, indeed. Labour's MPs are a boiling frog.

Jobabob

DanSmith said:

If the far left don't think parliament matters, why are they so insistent on running the Labour party?

It pays the bills.

MTimT

Morris_Dancer said:

On-topic: I do enjoy Mr. Wild's articles.

I agree entirely with the charge that, short of a functioning opposition, the Government will be complacent, arrogant and not held to account. Labour's MPs' idiocy in putting Corbyn on the ballot to start with was not merely dereliction of duty to party, but country.

As for their hokey-cokey approach: it seems doomed to failure. They need to either submit to Corbyn or grow some balls and leave. It's no use falling in love with the name of Labour and [seemingly] abandoning all hope of winning the next election.

FPT: Mr. T, an ancestor of the (short-lived) Emperor Galba, whilst campaigning, I think in Gaul, ordered a unit that he deemed worthy of punishment, to go woodcutting on a hilltop infested by the enemy.

As it was suicidal, other units voluntarily went out to protect the victimised unit. Upon their return, they heaped the gathered wood around Galba's tent and set it on fire.

Hope the Emperor enjoyed his fire! I guess he did not have Daenerys' abilities.

Essexit

"Thousands on the street or packed into halls, hundreds of Tweets and reTweets, hundreds of thousands of Facebook likes and myriad groups are a far more potent weapon than a parliamentary majority and the compromises that inevitably come with securing one."

Very true. However other Corbynites genuinely believe that their man will become PM. On the Jeremy Corbyn for PM FB page there are some photos from a rally in Hull with 3 or 4 thousand people supporting Jezza. The comments are quite illuminating - lots of them saying that this shows or even proves Corbyn's electability.

This subset of Corbynites seems to genuinely not understand that getting a few thousand people at a rally or using the same hashtag is a completely different ball game to getting 10 million plus votes at an election.

Cameron talked a lot of old cobblers but in one of his more lucid moments he said that Britain is not Twitter. He was not wrong.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. T, it was the emperor's ancestor [same name, as was common with the Roman naming system].

I'm not actually sure whether he survived. One suspects not. Just read it in Philip Matyszak's Classical Compendium.

MonikerDiCanio

Nasty class hatred and envy directed at Milne, Schneider, Lansman and Corbyn in this piece. Distasteful.

Ishmael_X

Morris_Dancer said:

On-topic: I do enjoy Mr. Wild's articles.

I agree entirely with the charge that, short of a functioning opposition, the Government will be complacent, arrogant and not held to account. Labour's MPs' idiocy in putting Corbyn on the ballot to start with was not merely dereliction of duty to party, but country.

As for their hokey-cokey approach: it seems doomed to failure. They need to either submit to Corbyn or grow some balls and leave. It's no use falling in love with the name of Labour and [seemingly] abandoning all hope of winning the next election.

FPT: Mr. T, an ancestor of the (short-lived) Emperor Galba, whilst campaigning, I think in Gaul, ordered a unit that he deemed worthy of punishment, to go woodcutting on a hilltop infested by the enemy.

As it was suicidal, other units voluntarily went out to protect the victimised unit. Upon their return, they heaped the gathered wood around Galba's tent and set it on fire.

I have never bought this "the country needs a strong opposition" line; it's been a cliche since 1979. What the country needs is strong tory government (or, if you are of a labour frame of mind, strong labour government) and plenty of it, and the less opposition the better. What a strong opposition actually did (1992-7) was empower the absolute w__kers in the tory party to paralyse the government and screw things up for everyone - not the effect it is meant to have in the script at all.

BudG

Yes, we need a strong opposition, the problem is that under Ed Miliband in the last Parliament, Labour were too busy trying to position themselves closely to Tory austerity policies which they saw as popular with voters that they found themselves either abstaining or even voting with the government, rather than opposing it.

The irony is that when Ed resigned, acting leader Harriet Harman whipped the Labour Party into abstaining on the welfare cuts in July last year. Corbyn, rebelled and voted against, whereas the other 3 leadership hopefuls followed the Party line and abstained. That was probably the most crucial thing that launched Corbyn on his path to eventual success in the contest. In voting against the government, while the others abstained, he highlighted to many who supported him that Labour were providing no real opposition to the government.

To be fair, since he was elected, the conservatives have been forced into several climb-downs and u-turns, probably more than in the previous 5 years under Ed Miliband. It would be wrong to give Corbyn full credit for that, because he was helped by some Conservative backbench dissention and a smaller working government majority. However, he HAS shown more opposition and fight than Labour had provided before that.

Presumably those who oppose Corbyn would go back to the days of acquiescing rather than opposing the government. Maybe they wouldn't, but that is the fear amongst those Labour Party members who support Corbyn. They view those MP's trying to drag the Party back to the right as throwbacks to the Blair area who were almost indistinguishable from the Conservatives in a lot of areas.

Razedabode

BudG said:

Yes, we need a strong opposition, the problem is that under Ed Miliband in the last Parliament, Labour were too busy trying to position themselves closely to Tory austerity policies which they saw as popular with voters that they found themselves either abstaining or even voting with the government, rather than opposing it.

The irony is that when Ed resigned, acting leader Harriet Harman whipped the Labour Party into abstaining on the welfare cuts in July last year. Corbyn, rebelled and voted against, whereas the other 3 leadership hopefuls followed the Party line and abstained. That was probably the most crucial thing that launched Corbyn on his path to eventual success in the contest. In voting against the government, while the others abstained, he highlighted to many who supported him that Labour were providing no real opposition to the government.

To be fair, since he was elected, the conservatives have been forced into several climb-downs and u-turns, probably more than in the previous 5 years under Ed Miliband. It would be wrong to give Corbyn full credit for that, because he was helped by some Conservative backbench dissention and a smaller working government majority. However, he HAS shown more opposition and fight than Labour had provided before that.

Presumably those who oppose Corbyn would go back to the days of acquiescing rather than opposing the government. Maybe they wouldn't, but that is the fear amongst those Labour Party members who support Corbyn. They view those MP's trying to drag the Party back to the right as throwbacks to Blair area who were almost indistinguishable from the Conservatives in a lot of areas.

I genuinely can't see any Labour successes brought on by Corbyns leadership. Labour lords have been doing much of the hard work.

To oppose everything may be well and good, but I've also not see anything in terms of policy that proves he's capable of delivering the change he wants. I mean - what happened to Labours big economic advisory council? Most resigned saying it delivered next to nothing in terms of policy.

nunu

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715962/Snorting-white-powder-dancing-loud-music-eating-McDonald-s-Sickening-footage-posted-online-inmate-shows-boasting-prisoners-PARTYING-bars.html

AnneJGP

(What is it about the hard left and women, by the way?)

They appear to have imbibed an ancient religious view-point, in which leadership is male and women are chattels.

grabcocque

I don't for just one second believe that McDonnell means what he says by the way. He's not a total tard, but he know which way his bread is buttered.

Jonathan

DanSmith said:

If the far left don't think parliament matters, why are they so insistent on running the Labour party?

They want to defeat the Blairites (whoever they are) and thereby settle old scores.

grabcocque

Ishmael_X said:

Morris_Dancer said:

On-topic: I do enjoy Mr. Wild's articles.

I agree entirely with the charge that, short of a functioning opposition, the Government will be complacent, arrogant and not held to account. Labour's MPs' idiocy in putting Corbyn on the ballot to start with was not merely dereliction of duty to party, but country.

As for their hokey-cokey approach: it seems doomed to failure. They need to either submit to Corbyn or grow some balls and leave. It's no use falling in love with the name of Labour and [seemingly] abandoning all hope of winning the next election.

FPT: Mr. T, an ancestor of the (short-lived) Emperor Galba, whilst campaigning, I think in Gaul, ordered a unit that he deemed worthy of punishment, to go woodcutting on a hilltop infested by the enemy.

As it was suicidal, other units voluntarily went out to protect the victimised unit. Upon their return, they heaped the gathered wood around Galba's tent and set it on fire.

I have never bought this "the country needs a strong opposition" line; it's been a cliche since 1979. What the country needs is strong tory government (or, if you are of a labour frame of mind, strong labour government) and plenty of it, and the less opposition the better. What a strong opposition actually did (1992-7) was empower the absolute w__kers in the tory party to paralyse the government and screw things up for everyone - not the effect it is meant to have in the script at all.

The job of the opposition is to be a government in waiting, To let the people know, and let the government know, that the proles have a viable alternative.

BudG

Razedabode said:

BudG said:

Yes, we need a strong opposition, the problem is that under Ed Miliband in the last Parliament, Labour were too busy trying to position themselves closely to Tory austerity policies which they saw as popular with voters that they found themselves either abstaining or even voting with the government, rather than opposing it.

The irony is that when Ed resigned, acting leader Harriet Harman whipped the Labour Party into abstaining on the welfare cuts in July last year. Corbyn, rebelled and voted against, whereas the other 3 leadership hopefuls followed the Party line and abstained. That was probably the most crucial thing that launched Corbyn on his path to eventual success in the contest. In voting against the government, while the others abstained, he highlighted to many who supported him that Labour were providing no real opposition to the government.

To be fair, since he was elected, the conservatives have been forced into several climb-downs and u-turns, probably more than in the previous 5 years under Ed Miliband. It would be wrong to give Corbyn full credit for that, because he was helped by some Conservative backbench dissention and a smaller working government majority. However, he HAS shown more opposition and fight than Labour had provided before that.

Presumably those who oppose Corbyn would go back to the days of acquiescing rather than opposing the government. Maybe they wouldn't, but that is the fear amongst those Labour Party members who support Corbyn. They view those MP's trying to drag the Party back to the right as throwbacks to Blair area who were almost indistinguishable from the Conservatives in a lot of areas.

I genuinely can't see any Labour successes brought on by Corbyns leadership. Labour lords have been doing much of the hard work.

To oppose everything may be well and good, but I've also not see anything in terms of policy that proves he's capable of delivering the change he wants. I mean - what happened to Labours big economic advisory council? Most resigned saying it delivered next to nothing in terms of policy.

The Labour Lords have done their bit, but Corbyn has shown leadership by helping to force u-turns on forced school academisation, plans for PIP cuts and tax credit cuts. As I said, it is not all down solely to him, but I do think the previous Labour opposition would have given the government an easier ride on those things.

peter_from_putney

" At some stage soon, the Speaker will surely be compelled to have quiet words behind the scenes about the effect Labour’s turmoil is having on the functioning of Parliament."

SO - Do you really see Bercow intervening in such a manner? ...... Pigs might fly imho.

MTimT

nunu said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715962/Snorting-white-powder-dancing-loud-music-eating-McDonald-s-Sickening-footage-posted-online-inmate-shows-boasting-prisoners-PARTYING-bars.html

What is it about these idiots who publish incriminating stuff online. Almost as stupid as Affluenza Kid and his mother.

MonikerDiCanio

MTimT said:

nunu said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715962/Snorting-white-powder-dancing-loud-music-eating-McDonald-s-Sickening-footage-posted-online-inmate-shows-boasting-prisoners-PARTYING-bars.html

What is it about these idiots who publish incriminating stuff online. Almost as stupid as Affluenza Kid and his mother.

They're criminal psychopaths who want to get the screws in trouble. The required punishment is unavailable.

nunu

Jonathan said:

DanSmith said:

If the far left don't think parliament matters, why are they so insistent on running the Labour party?

They want to defeat the Blairites (whoever they are) and thereby settle old scores.

and as soon as Labour lose 50 more seats will leave the party again and move on to something else whilst those that have been members for decades will be left to pick up the pieces.

Jonathan

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

HYUFD

If Corbyn is re-elected and May does any Brexit deal which allows some free movement (even with controls) to get into the single market then UKIP will become the effective opposition for a time and Carswell could use that to try and get slots at PMQs. If May does a deal ending free movement completely and taking the UK out of the single market then the LDs will become the effective opposition for a time and Farron and Clegg will use PMQs accordingly. Much like the Tories under IDS when the LDs became the effective opposition to New Labour over the Iraq War Labour under Corbyn is, as Smith said, 'not even on the pitch'

Morris_Dancer

F1: Hulkenberg has a one place grid penalty for using a set of tyres that should have been given back after practice.

Having backed him to be top 6 (he now starts 8th) one is unamused.

Scrapheap_as_was

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

She's not the worst PM post war just yet....

Morris_Dancer

Mr. HYUFD, no chance. UKIP has one MP. It must be about tenth in line to get automatic PMQ questions.

Jonathan

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

She's not the worst PM post war just yet....

What do you mean? Brown has the best reputation of all the C21 PMs

David_Evershed

Once Corbyn wins the leadership again most Labour MPs will knuckle down, work with the leader and accept that the left wing of the party is in the ascendency.

Most Labour voters will continue to vote Labour but the centre ground will not switch to Labour, leaving it with a few less MPs and Conservatives with a few more MPs at the next general election.

All very boring after the recent excitement.

MonikerDiCanio

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

True. Why do these awful people so want to inflict their inadequacies on the country ?

David_Evershed

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

Because she is dictatorial?

kle4

MonikerDiCanio said:

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

True. Why do these awful people so want to inflict their inadequacies on the country ?

If better people are not able to do it, those who are left will pick up the pieces. We get the leaders we deserve.

GeoffM

Jonathan said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

She's not the worst PM post war just yet....

What do you mean? Brown has the best reputation of all the C21 PMs

You seem to have that phrase on auto-paste.
Repeating it doesn't make it less laughable, though.
If you were in the slightest bit self-aware you'd see that it's only you pasting it.

GeoffM

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

She's off her head on pills?

DaveDave

Excellent piece. Labour know it is suicide to split. At local/regional level Labour will need to stick together to keep power at councils. Does anyone know if SDP ran candidates at Council level?

bigjohnowls

I think SO's articles are basically the same words put in a different order each week.

Same Myth the left don't want to win, every week

I am sure Joff believes what he writes but unfortunately for him he has rejoined the wrong party at the wrong time.

How on earth someone who openly admits to preferring Cameron to Corbyn and someone who cannot see the PLP are happy to destroy Labour can lecture the left on not wanting to be in Government is beyond me.

He and the PLP are the ones giving the Tories the free ride IMO.

Morris_Dancer

Brown was the Antoninus Caracalla of PMs.

HYUFD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, no chance. UKIP has one MP. It must be about tenth in line to get automatic PMQ questions.

Only because of FPTP, it won 13% of the vote at the last general election making it comfortably the third largest party by voteshare. If UKIP's poll rating goes up further then what Carswell says will become ever more significant whether at PMQs or not and if they start to win a few by-elections their influence in the Commons will increase as a result too

Morris_Dancer

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

Morris_Dancer

Corbyn's take on the split story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36933590

Anyway, I'm off now.

FrancisUrquhart

Proper school teacher mode...now then johnny you need to think carefully about your actions...

Corbyn: Labour MPs planning split should think again
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36933590

IanB2

Never has anyone ever boarded a ship and then been able to spot all of its leaks and other failings so clearly as our Mr Joff...

TOPPING

CD13 said:

Labour decided to sup with the Devil. They're gonna need a bigger spoon.

Jezza knows he's right in everything, so why should he ever give up? It's always the other fella's fault.

He'll be re-elected, then the Erdogan purge will begin.

First, Jezza is obnoxious, corrosive and borderline evil.

He has embraced the principle of my enemy's enemy is my friend to the point of ignoring, to be charitable, the, ahem, less savoury aspects of the concomitant ideologies.

But.

The membership is right behind him so I can see why he is reluctant to give up the leadership.

JonathanD

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

It will be interesting to see how her relationship with Hammond develops. She's already humiliated him once with the Hinkley C mess. As chancellor he could do plenty of damage back although I've no real idea what his own politics are.

HYUFD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

FrancisUrquhart

Jezza won't do a ch4 news debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/corbyn-accused-of-bottling-hustings-with-smith-after-rejecting-debate

Speedy

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

IanB2

DaveDave said:

Excellent piece. Labour know it is suicide to split. At local/regional level Labour will need to stick together to keep power at councils. Does anyone know if SDP ran candidates at Council level?

Yes, from the outset. Lots of arguments where Liberals had already been working a ward!

MarkSenior

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

foxinsoxuk

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

She's not the worst PM post war just yet....

Fancy another PB Prem League Fantasy Football this season?

FrancisUrquhart

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

In the picture on the left are we even sure they are all there for Owen smith or the ice cream van parked up nearby?

DanSmith

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jezza won't do a ch4 news debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/corbyn-accused-of-bottling-hustings-with-smith-after-rejecting-debate

Seems like Jezza is trying to out chicken the chicken coup.

HYUFD

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

Actually they are still polling at 12% ie about their general election score, in most polls. If, or more probably when, May agrees free movement with some controls that score will only go up. Aaron Banks, net worth £100 million+, has also promised to bankroll them after his favoured candidate for the Tory leadership, Andrea Leadsom, lost out to May

SouthamObserver

DanSmith said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jezza won't do a ch4 news debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/corbyn-accused-of-bottling-hustings-with-smith-after-rejecting-debate

Seems like Jezza is trying to out chicken the chicken coup.

Brave Sir Jeremy has shat his pants.

Speedy

FrancisUrquhart said:

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

In the picture on the left are we even sure they are all there for Owen smith or the ice cream van parked up nearby?

There is a possibility that Smith promised free ice cream.

justin124

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

I actually see no reason why leadership candidates should feel obliged to agree to the demands of the broadcasting authorities. There were no such debates when Kinnock and Hattersley fought it out in 1983 nor in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged Kinnock. Similarly no debates took place between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett and John Prescott in 1994.

GeoffM

Speedy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

In the picture on the left are we even sure they are all there for Owen smith or the ice cream van parked up nearby?

There is a possibility that Smith promised free ice cream.

That's a very disappointing retreat from free owls.

Indigo

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

Lots of their members are happy to throw in the towel, they won... the LDs not so much

HYUFD

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

The only Labour membership poll we have so far has Corbyn beating Smith 56% to 34%, if the undecideds go to Smith as Corbyn continues to fall to Foot 1983 levels in opinion polls then you are looking at a 55% to 45% Corbyn win which would be a fall of 5% from the 60% he won in 2015
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/jeremy-corbyn-support-rises-among-party-members/

IanB2

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

This sounds like wishful thinking. UKIP must have a motivation problem, now that its main purpose has been nullified. Its support isn't, with just a handful of exceptions, geographically concentrated, so FPTP will always represent a considerable hurdle. Its only hope in 'safe' Labour seats is that it can gather in the tactical votes of other non-Labour voters, to ally with its discontented wwc, but being on the extreme it isn't best placed to gather in tactical support ISTM.

And UKIP has a strategic problem in that it has positioned itself as socially fairly and economically very liberal, whereas the wwc that now looks like its most promising constituency is neither.

nunu

JonathanD said:

Jonathan said:

May increasingly reminds me of Brown.

It will be interesting to see how her relationship with Hammond develops. She's already humiliated him once with the Hinkley C mess. As chancellor he could do plenty of damage back although I've no real idea what his own politics are.

I don't think either of them are that ideological I think they both like steady as she goes government.

Sean_F

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

But UKIP won big, on June 23rd, permanently and irrevocably. They persuaded 52% of the voters to leave the EU. What's a handful of local by-elections by comparison?

BudG

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

If the PLP want to get rid of Corbyn they are gonna have to dramatically rethink their strategy and stop backing themselves into corners like leadership elections they cannot hope to win and the latest signals about forming a Party within a Party and taking legal action.

First step would be for Smith to pull out of the leadership contest, citing that he is doing so to enable unity and a healing of the split. Second step is for the PLP to knuckle down and provide a united opposition to the government for the next couple of years and to stop briefing against Corbyn to any journalist who will listen.

They need to be patient and play the long game. They need to win over the membership of the Party who blame the disruptive PLP for their low poll ratings. They need to remove all the excuses that Corbyn's followers have for their man. Then, if Labour are still languishing on around 28% in the polls in two years time, they then have a chance of beating him in a leadership contest.

However, I don't think they will do that, because if Labour actually improve in the polls and do reasonably well in by elections and local elections in the next couple of years, then they will never get rid of him and they will actually show that THEY were the problem and not Corbyn.

They don't really fear failure under Corbyn, they fear success.

justin124

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jezza won't do a ch4 news debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/corbyn-accused-of-bottling-hustings-with-smith-after-rejecting-debate

I actually see no reason why leadership candidates should feel obliged to agree to the demands of the broadcasting authorities. There were no such debates when Kinnock and Hattersley fought it out in 1983 nor in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged Kinnock. Similarly no debates took place between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett and John Prescott in 1994.

Charles

DanSmith said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jezza won't do a ch4 news debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/corbyn-accused-of-bottling-hustings-with-smith-after-rejecting-debate

Seems like Jezza is trying to out chicken the chicken coup.

No it's the rational decision. He's only got downside from a head to head so why risk it?

Indigo

IanB2 said:

And UKIP has a strategic problem in that it has positioned itself as socially fairly and economically very liberal, whereas the wwc that now looks like its most promising constituency is neither.

UKIP socially liberal ?! You are having a giraffe, what about all those "back to the 1950's" and wife/sink jokes of last year ? All the need to do is move the economic policy a bit more "Old Labour" and they are ideally set to pick up disaffected WWC votes.

HYUFD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

I actually see no reason why leadership candidates should feel obliged to agree to the demands of the broadcasting authorities. There were no such debates when Kinnock and Hattersley fought it out in 1983 nor in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged Kinnock. Similarly no debates took place between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett and John Prescott in 1994.

No but it makes Corbyn look like a chicken

FrancisUrquhart

Charles said:

DanSmith said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jezza won't do a ch4 news debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/corbyn-accused-of-bottling-hustings-with-smith-after-rejecting-debate

Seems like Jezza is trying to out chicken the chicken coup.

No it's the rational decision. He's only got downside from a head to head so why risk it?

This...also last time he did ch4 for leadership they nailed him over his "friends" & he lost his temper.

JackW

Just noted on the last thread the first full poll, post DNC convention from RABA with Clinton +15 .... reports of Rod Crosby chocking on a kosher salt beef sarnie are yet to be confirmed ....

GeoffM

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Mon...[snip lots of senile dribbling bollocks]...ctions - vanishing .

To UKIP (and all freedom lovers everywhere) June 23rd was the only vote that matters. not a parish council by-election in Nowhereingham-On-Sea.

TOPPING

Sean_F said:

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

But UKIP won big, on June 23rd, permanently and irrevocably. They persuaded 52% of the voters to leave the EU. What's a handful of local by-elections by comparison?

Yep. Arguably the most successful pressure group ever.

But only ever a pressure group.

BudG

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

The only Labour membership poll we have so far has Corbyn beating Smith 56% to 34%, if the undecideds go to Smith as Corbyn continues to fall to Foot 1983 levels in opinion polls then you are looking at a 55% to 45% Corbyn win which would be a fall of 5% from the 60% he won in 2015
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/jeremy-corbyn-support-rises-among-party-members/

Yes, but then added to that you have the £25 members who even Smith's team say are likely to be breaking 2 to 1 in favour of Corbyn.. and after paying £25 only a week or so ago, they are highly unlikely to change their minds. I agree with speedy and would reckon on at least 65% in favour of Corbyn and if the members from January onwards get their votes reinstated in a court case, then that figure could easily go above 70%

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

This sounds like wishful thinking. UKIP must have a motivation problem, now that its main purpose has been nullified. Its support isn't, with just a handful of exceptions, geographically concentrated, so FPTP will always represent a considerable hurdle. Its only hope in 'safe' Labour seats is that it can gather in the tactical votes of other non-Labour voters, to ally with its discontented wwc, but being on the extreme it isn't best placed to gather in tactical support ISTM.

And UKIP has a strategic problem in that it has positioned itself as socially fairly and economically very liberal, whereas the wwc that now looks like its most promising constituency is neither.

Much depends on who UKIP has picked as their next leader but if, as is likely, May agrees some free movement Leavers who cry 'betrayal' will inevitably be giving UKIP another look. FPTP will continue to be a hindrance but with the next election 4 years away they can certainly win some by-elections as the LDs did during the Iraq War, they were only a few hundred votes behind Labour in the Heywood and Middleton by-election for instance

FrancisUrquhart

Is it true that rod got the ban hammer? Has he been banging on about the holocaust again?

justin124

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

I actually see no reason why leadership candidates should feel obliged to agree to the demands of the broadcasting authorities. There were no such debates when Kinnock and Hattersley fought it out in 1983 nor in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged Kinnock. Similarly no debates took place between John Smith and Bryan Gould in 1992 nor between Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett and John Prescott in 1994.

No but it makes Corbyn look like a chicken

But no more so than the candidates in those earlier leadership election campaigns.

TheWhiteRabbit

Mike/TSE/Robert

Do you have US Presidential Threads lined up? If not I am happy to contribute.

HYUFD

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

And UKIP has a strategic problem in that it has positioned itself as socially fairly and economically very liberal, whereas the wwc that now looks like its most promising constituency is neither.

UKIP socially liberal ?! You are having a giraffe, what about all those "back to the 1950's" and wife/sink jokes of last year ? All the need to do is move the economic policy a bit more "Old Labour" and they are ideally set to pick up disaffected WWC votes.

Indeed, UKIP were the only party to oppose gay marriage for example and at the last election promised more money for the NHS and pensioners on a similar premise to Leave

David_Evershed

The Lib Dems are working on their manifesto for a snap general election. Their plan is to have the text and layout finalised for early September, prior to the conference.

How far do we think Labour has got with their version?

IanB2

David_Evershed said:

The Lib Dems are working on their manifesto for a snap general election. Their plan is to have the text and layout finalised for early September, prior to the conference.

How far do we think Labour has got with their version?

I am sure that both of them are coming along nicely...

GeoffM

David_Evershed said:

The Lib Dems are working on their manifesto for a snap general election. Their plan is to have the text and layout finalised for early September, prior to the conference.

The proofreading dept at the printers will be the biggest audience it gets.

Essexit

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

If it becomes clear that you're right and Corbyn is going to win significantly bigger than he did last time, Smith pulling out may be the best move. He'd look like a coward but at least he'd deny Corbynites the ability to point to an even bigger mandate.

IanB2

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

And UKIP has a strategic problem in that it has positioned itself as socially fairly and economically very liberal, whereas the wwc that now looks like its most promising constituency is neither.

UKIP socially liberal ?! You are having a giraffe, what about all those "back to the 1950's" and wife/sink jokes of last year ? All the need to do is move the economic policy a bit more "Old Labour" and they are ideally set to pick up disaffected WWC votes.

Indeed, UKIP were the only party to oppose gay marriage for example and at the last election promised more money for the NHS and pensioners on a similar premise to Leave

OK, fair comment, although I think they are somewhat compromised by their libertarian leanings on a few social issues. But there is no denying that their economic stance is seriously out of kilter with their new target audience.

williamglenn

David_Evershed said:

How far do we think Labour has got with their version?

I believe it's been ready to go since 1983.

Speedy

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I think that the talk about the "moderates" latest plots against the Labour party is going to push Corbyn's numbers even higher.

A few days ago I said that Corbyn might get in the low 60's, but after the BMG polls showing Corbyn's support hovering between 60-75% among Labour voters, plus that Smith's campaign is a shambles, plus today's plots.
I'm revising that estimate to the high 60's-low 70's for Corbyn.

It's obvious that Smith is a dead man walking, even Liz Kendall got more people in her rallies:

https://twitter.com/LabourLeft/status/759403974785110017

And that was before the latest plots became public.

The only Labour membership poll we have so far has Corbyn beating Smith 56% to 34%, if the undecideds go to Smith as Corbyn continues to fall to Foot 1983 levels in opinion polls then you are looking at a 55% to 45% Corbyn win which would be a fall of 5% from the 60% he won in 2015
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/jeremy-corbyn-support-rises-among-party-members/

Ah HYUFD, the Labour leadership contest ended the moment Owen Smith opened his mouth.

If Corbyn is getting 60% among 2015 Labour voters and 75% among current Labour voters you know he is going to get an even larger number among Labour members.

The latest plots have only helped Corbyn, it made it from a referendum about him to a referendum about them.

AnneJGP

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

But UKIP won big, on June 23rd, permanently and irrevocably. They persuaded 52% of the voters to leave the EU. What's a handful of local by-elections by comparison?

Yep. Arguably the most successful pressure group ever.

But only ever a pressure group.

And yet, contrary to Mr McDonnell's theory (to which Joff refers in the header) that pressure group achieved its aims through the parliamentary system.

Despite little representation in parliament, they worked the system to force a referendum onto the party which is in power.

(edited for spelling)

weejonnie

http://twitter.com/JUDAHsCHILDREN/status/758747171751497729/photo/1

peter_from_putney

For those sufficiently patient, i.e. prepared to wait for up to 4 years or even longer for the result of their wagers to be determined, now might be the time for a punt on the "Next Labour Leader" market, where some of the odds available look quite compelling.
Examples are as follows:

Clive Lewis* .......... 16/1 (Various)
Dan Jarvis ............. 22/1 (PP, Betfair Sports)
Lisa Nandy* .......... 22/1 (Corals)
Chuka Umunna ..... 28/1 (Corals)
Keir Starmer ......... 33/1 (Corals)
Etc, etc.

* As previously recommended by HenryG

DYOR.

TOPPING

AnneJGP said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

But UKIP won big, on June 23rd, permanently and irrevocably. They persuaded 52% of the voters to leave the EU. What's a handful of local by-elections by comparison?

Yep. Arguably the most successful pressure group ever.

But only ever a pressure group.

And yet, contrary to Mr McDonnell's theory (to which Joff refers in the header) that pressure group achieved its aims through the parliamentary system.

Despite little representation in parliament, they worked the system to force a referendum onto the party which is in power.

(edited for spelling)

There was a confluence of ideas. Or of ideas railing against recent events. Globalisation, ME immigrants, technological advance, etc, and a harking back to an idealised past. Who would not want a world of old maids bicycling to holy communion?

Problem for Jezza is that relatively few people hark back to the days of the three day week and collective bargaining.

Sean_F

AnneJGP said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

MarkSenior said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's like arguing a football team who got 13 corners to the opponent's 7 only lost 2-1 because only goals counted towards the scoreline.

No it is politically realistic. If May agrees some free movement then UKIP will instantly become the effective opposition, it is only the FPTP system which holds them back, had PR been used at the last election and MPs were awarded in proportion to national voteshare UKIP would have won 84 MPs rather than just one. Even under FPTP if their voteshare starts to go up then they may well win by-elections in Labour working class northern and Midlands towns while Corbyn leads the party and also Tory seats in the likes of Essex and Kent if any seats come up there

UKIP are sinking like a stone in every measurable way . Membership - down , Money - they have none , Councillors - defecting or resigning , Candidates - cannot find many to stand , Votes in local elections - vanishing .

But UKIP won big, on June 23rd, permanently and irrevocably. They persuaded 52% of the voters to leave the EU. What's a handful of local by-elections by comparison?

Yep. Arguably the most successful pressure group ever.

But only ever a pressure group.

And yet, contrary to Mr McDonnell's theory (to which Joff refers in the header) that pressure group achieved its aims through the parliamentary system.

Despite little representation in parliament, they worked the system to force a referendum onto the party which is in power.

(edited for spelling)

If a party emerges from nowhere and consistently hits 10% or so, it can pull its closest rival in its direction.

Anorak

One of the best articles of the year.

Can I also thank SO for using 'myriad' without a subsequent 'of'. Modern dictionaries seem to allow the 'of', but this is only because of persistent misuse by morons and/or Americans.