Clinton may stagger over the line against an opponent who can't even get his own side on-side. Could 2020 be springtime for the next Republican challenger?
I have for a while thought that November 8 will produce a one-term President.
Indeed. When was the last time a sitting President got Primaried by their own party?
Last major challenge was Ted Kennedy vs Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again on 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Interesting comparison. The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate. If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020. Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
Maybe but the party base mood is the same, they are fed up with losing RINO nominees like McCain and Romney telling them they need to be Democrat lite much like Labour members were fed up with leaders too close to the Tories. Thus if Trump does lose the base may decide he was too moderate and socially liberal and pick a true, hardcore social conservative in 2020 like Ted Cruz (who the GOP elite also loathe despite his clashes with Trump)
Clinton may stagger over the line against an opponent who can't even get his own side on-side. Could 2020 be springtime for the next Republican challenger?
I have for a while thought that November 8 will produce a one-term President.
Indeed. When was the last time a sitting President got Primaried by their own party?
I see Trump has refused to endorse McCain or Ryan despite both of them sticking with him over the last tumultuous week.
McCain will be relieved to not receive the Trump black spot in his hispanic rich Arizona Senate seat fight. I don't discount McCain eventually ditching Trump if his Senate seat looks on the line in the next month.
They are in a tough spot now I think - if they drop their endorsement don't they look petty?
They can give it a few weeks then pin it on something outrageous Trump says or does. It's not like they'll be short of material, and they get to twist the knife by adding an extra news cycle to whatever the anti-Trump story is.
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
This reply has the easiest and most relevant use of the word Hitler ever.
Hitler.
Without Adolf, what analogy would be used instead? It's such a dismally lazy one.
why not use the most directly applicable analogy?
How about the fall of the Roman Republic? All the powers accrued by Pompey, Caesar, Marc Anthony, Octavian, Tiberius and the rest were lawfully passed by the senate but the system degraded into autocracy all the same.
Any person or party democratically elected can be a threat to democracy if they:
- Change the system overtly to prevent accountability and destroy the mechanisms that removed the last government (hence the Hitler point) - Change societal norms or the application of power so that the illusions of democracy remain while it becomes increasingly a show (see any number of former African dictators - or Mugabe in the present - or some Pakistani governments, or possibly Erdogan in Turkey today). - Govern in such a way that it allows or encourages the rise of extremist anti-democratic forces, either within their own party or in opposition to them.
I always understood that the American political system, with all its checks and balances and tendency for gridlock, was explicitly designed to prevent much of this? If so, it becomes a relevant question how far an aspiring dictator who finds themself in the White House could actually get?
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again on 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Interesting comparison. The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate. If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020. Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
Maybe but the party base mood is the same, they are fed up with losing RINO nominees like McCain and Romney telling them they need to be Democrat lite much like Labour members were fed up with leaders too close to the Tories. Thus if Trump does lose the base may decide he was too moderate and socially liberal and pick a true, hardcore social conservative in 2020 like Ted Cruz (who the GOP elite also loathe despite his clashes with Trump)
I've thought for a number of years that the GOP simply isn't mentally in the right place to win. They're over ideological and they're paranoid about how they are portrayed.
A good sign that they're ready to win will be when they stop obsessing about "RINOs" and "the MSM".
Clinton may stagger over the line against an opponent who can't even get his own side on-side. Could 2020 be springtime for the next Republican challenger?
To me the betting value may well be on a Clinton landslide. We may be in Con takes Bootle territory.
Shadsys market on EV is interesting. I have had a little dabble on 310- 329 at 8, but need to do some sums to see how likely further up works.
I think it's possible there'll be a knock out blow during the campaign but wouldn't rule out the victim being Clinton. If she becomes fatally compromised after key Republicans have backed her it will discredit the entire US elite and make electing Trump look like a necessary evil to clear out the system.
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
This reply has the easiest and most relevant use of the word Hitler ever.
Hitler.
Without Adolf, what analogy would be used instead? It's such a dismally lazy one.
why not use the most directly applicable analogy?
How about the fall of the Roman Republic? All the powers accrued by Pompey, Caesar, Marc Anthony, Octavian, Tiberius and the rest were lawfully passed by the senate but the system degraded into autocracy all the same.
Any person or party democratically elected can be a threat to democracy if they:
- Change the system overtly to prevent accountability and destroy the mechanisms that removed the last government (hence the Hitler point) - Change societal norms or the application of power so that the illusions of democracy remain while it becomes increasingly a show (see any number of former African dictators - or Mugabe in the present - or some Pakistani governments, or possibly Erdogan in Turkey today). - Govern in such a way that it allows or encourages the rise of extremist anti-democratic forces, either within their own party or in opposition to them.
I always understood that the American political system, with all its checks and balances and tendency for gridlock, was explicitly designed to prevent much of this? If so, it becomes a relevant question how far an aspiring dictator who finds themself in the White House could actually get?
That's what it was designed for but the design is completely broken. There wasn't supposed to be a president with a huge, unaccountable security apparatus at his disposal, but there is. He can send a flying robot to kill you. There are no substantial checks on this power.
On Rome, it's worth noting the rot set in some time before the Republic gave way to Empire [and, technically, Augustus wasn't even emperor. I forget his title, [checked Wikipedia, it was Princeps Civitas, first citizen].
The rules on age of consulship and repeatedly holding the office were suspended about a century prior to the Republic's demise, for Aemilianus Scipio, firstly to sort out Iberia, then destroy Carthage (Third Punic War). Later, Marian reforms [apparently] helped professionalise armies whilst also helping to shift loyalty from state to generals. The build-up of familial power rather than meritocratic appointment took a long time to happen, but helped establish a firm elite in the political sphere, which also meant the military world became increasingly under the sway of the few top dogs.
It was very much a boiled frog approach, rather than a big bang. But, even with that, Caesar got assassinated to stop him being dictator for life* to try and restore the Republic.
These changes happen by small degrees. We're seeing something comparable with the idiotic approach of Labour to constitutional tinkering in a short-sighted, narrow-minded and incompetent effort to provide itself with everlasting Celtic fiefdoms.
We're also seeing the continual erosion of free speech, the worst moment of which was a march of thousands, some dressed as suicide bombers and others holding placards calling for those who insult Islam to be beheaded, getting a police escort through London.
Of course, it's harder to identify such trends whilst in the middle of them, and hard to arrest them when there are useful idiots (like the Pope responding to the Hebdo murders by saying if a man insulted his mother he'd punch him).
*Well, technically it didn't, it just shortened the term of his holding the office.
It's been a disastrous few days for Trump, no question. The American parties seem to be even looser coalitions than the main British parties. To be fair, Trump still has a lot of time - the debates will, as always, be significant. Obama's put down was wonderful - the pauses between sentences are just theatrical now but the knife thrusts are delivered so well. He's older but he's still a class act.
Fascinating to see May revealing not so much her inner Thatcher but her inner Heseltine and a sense of the Britain we might have had in 1990 under different circumstances. This is active, interventionist Government with a policy for everything and a commission for everything else.
It's not a million miles from Blair and there's an argument the Social Democrats are back in Government, not the Jenkins people but the Owenites. This is a Government David Owen can support with comfort. I suppose the question I'd ask Conservatives - does any of this matter as long as you are in power ? I suspect not.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again on 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Interesting comparison. The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate. If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020. Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
Maybe but the party base mood is the same, they are fed up with losing RINO nominees like McCain and Romney telling them they need to be Democrat lite much like Labour members were fed up with leaders too close to the Tories. Thus if Trump does lose the base may decide he was too moderate and socially liberal and pick a true, hardcore social conservative in 2020 like Ted Cruz (who the GOP elite also loathe despite his clashes with Trump)
I've thought for a number of years that the GOP simply isn't mentally in the right place to win. They're over ideological and they're paranoid about how they are portrayed.
A good sign that they're ready to win will be when they stop obsessing about "RINOs" and "the MSM".
Indeed. One wonders at what point the brand becomes too damaged to salvage.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again on 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Interesting comparison. The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate. If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020. Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
Maybe but the party base mood is the same, they are fed up with losing RINO nominees like McCain and Romney telling them they need to be Democrat lite much like Labour members were fed up with leaders too close to the Tories. Thus if Trump does lose the base may decide he was too moderate and socially liberal and pick a true, hardcore social conservative in 2020 like Ted Cruz (who the GOP elite also loathe despite his clashes with Trump)
I've thought for a number of years that the GOP simply isn't mentally in the right place to win. They're over ideological and they're paranoid about how they are portrayed.
A good sign that they're ready to win will be when they stop obsessing about "RINOs" and "the MSM".
Indeed. One wonders at what point the brand becomes too damaged to salvage.
ask labour... which one is closer to the brink, if not over it..
Mr. Jim, sentiment, inertia and the nature of the system will help the Republicans in much the same way it's helping Labour survive.
We're already hearing some Labour voices here say there'll be either no splitters or tiny numbers, if Corbyn retains the leadership, and that's when they're clearly massively unhappy to have him there.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again on 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Interesting comparison. The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate. If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020. Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
Maybe but the party base mood is the same, they are fed up with losing RINO nominees like McCain and Romney telling them they need to be Democrat lite much like Labour members were fed up with leaders too close to the Tories. Thus if Trump does lose the base may decide he was too moderate and socially liberal and pick a true, hardcore social conservative in 2020 like Ted Cruz (who the GOP elite also loathe despite his clashes with Trump)
I've thought for a number of years that the GOP simply isn't mentally in the right place to win. They're over ideological and they're paranoid about how they are portrayed.
A good sign that they're ready to win will be when they stop obsessing about "RINOs" and "the MSM".
Indeed. One wonders at what point the brand becomes too damaged to salvage.
ask labour... which one is closer to the brink, if not over it..
Neither of them has had to listen to an unassailable leader denounce their values in the way Blair did in his 'forces of conservatism' speech.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again on 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Interesting comparison. The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate. If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020. Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
Maybe but the party base mood is the same, they are fed up with losing RINO nominees like McCain and Romney telling them they need to be Democrat lite much like Labour members were fed up with leaders too close to the Tories. Thus if Trump does lose the base may decide he was too moderate and socially liberal and pick a true, hardcore social conservative in 2020 like Ted Cruz (who the GOP elite also loathe despite his clashes with Trump)
I've thought for a number of years that the GOP simply isn't mentally in the right place to win. They're over ideological and they're paranoid about how they are portrayed.
A good sign that they're ready to win will be when they stop obsessing about "RINOs" and "the MSM".
This reply has the easiest and most relevant use of the word Hitler ever.
Hitler.
Without Adolf, what analogy would be used instead? It's such a dismally lazy one.
why not use the most directly applicable analogy?
How about the fall of the Roman Republic? All the powers accrued by Pompey, Caesar, Marc Anthony, Octavian, Tiberius and the rest were lawfully passed by the senate but the system degraded into autocracy all the same.
Any person or party democratically elected can be a threat to democracy if they:
- Change the system overtly to prevent accountability and destroy the mechanisms that removed the last government (hence the Hitler point) - Change societal norms or the application of power so that the illusions of democracy remain while it becomes increasingly a show (see any number of former African dictators - or Mugabe in the present - or some Pakistani governments, or possibly Erdogan in Turkey today). - Govern in such a way that it allows or encourages the rise of extremist anti-democratic forces, either within their own party or in opposition to them.
The separation of powers within the US would make it very difficult to subvert democracy there (at national level).
The only person who could have done it, IMHO, is FDR, when he won absurd majorities in Congress, between 1932-40.
True, though it's notable that he was blocked from his court-packing plan (the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937), when he tried to extend his powers in the immediate aftermath of his near-absolute 1936 landslide.
But for all that, while an individual politician might find it difficult to subvert democracy in the US without some overwhelming national movement - given the need to change the constitution and, hence, the need to have many state legislatures supportive, as well as huge majorities in both Houses - there can be no doubt that for much of its time, *attitudes* meant that the US was a very imperfect democracy, whether that be the effective bar on blacks voting in the South or the limits on freedom of speech that the culture of McCarthy and his likes achieved.
Trump is much more in the McCarthy mould and though, like the original, he's not a great politician, someone who was a more skilled demagogue might change what's seen as socially or politically acceptable sufficiently to subvert meaningful democracy.
The trick of all successful autocrats is to persuade a sizable minority that they need to give up their freedom in one area in order to enable the leadership (whether individual, collective, party or class) to gain the security of protection against some perceived threat. Once you conjure the threat, you create the condition.
Mr Dancer to an extent but as history shows it can take multiple election defeats for parties to realise they are in a hole, decide to stop digging and pull themselves out. Political parties have no automatic right to exist. Just ask the Whigs on both sides of the Atlantic!
Mr. Jim, I agree, but in the case of the US it's only happened once in two centuries.
In the UK, parties can die/diminish more quickly (Liberals, Scottish Labour) but it requires an alternative there to step into the breach. UKIP and the Lib Dems may take chunks out of Labour but I don't think they're in a position to kill off or overtake Labour.
If Corbyn loses heavily in 2020 and stays on as leader, the reds may become the third party in UK politics, but even that's unlikely.
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
This reply has the easiest and most relevant use of the word Hitler ever.
Hitler.
Without Adolf, what analogy would be used instead? It's such a dismally lazy one.
why not use the most directly applicable analogy?
How about the fall of the Roman Republic? All the powers accrued by Pompey, Caesar, Marc Anthony, Octavian, Tiberius and the rest were lawfully passed by the senate but the system degraded into autocracy all the same.
Any person or party democratically elected can be a threat to democracy if they:
- Change the system overtly to prevent accountability and destroy the mechanisms that removed the last government (hence the Hitler point) - Change societal norms or the application of power so that the illusions of democracy remain while it becomes increasingly a show (see any number of former African dictators - or Mugabe in the present - or some Pakistani governments, or possibly Erdogan in Turkey today). - Govern in such a way that it allows or encourages the rise of extremist anti-democratic forces, either within their own party or in opposition to them.
I always understood that the American political system, with all its checks and balances and tendency for gridlock, was explicitly designed to prevent much of this? If so, it becomes a relevant question how far an aspiring dictator who finds themself in the White House could actually get?
That's what it was designed for but the design is completely broken. There wasn't supposed to be a president with a huge, unaccountable security apparatus at his disposal, but there is. He can send a flying robot to kill you. There are no substantial checks on this power.
given the level of scrutiny in the US and the mega fuss over things like Clinton's emails and the rest, I can't see it myself. Even if they ordered it and the orders are followed, the backlash comes, surely, in every subsequent election culminating in loss of office? The dictator scenario only works if they can change the rules somehow to avoid being voted out.
Which of course is almost the case in the House: am I right in thinking the only way the Dems could get fairer (or even favourable) boundaries is to take control under the current fiddled ones?
I did that poll, as I mentioned at the time: I had the Social Democrats and IIRC People's Party options.
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
If heaven forbid we do end up with a breakaway from Labour of some significance, I'm sure that the breakaway would include "Labour" somewhere in the brand name. "Progressive Labour" which has the convenient acroynm of PLP for example. It would be more likely to attract some of those loyal to the Labour brand. So I think the YouGov polling is underestimating somewhat the potential of the breakaway, if not necessarily by much.
It will be hard to forecast how the split will work locally. Progressive Labour might be strong in London, and old Labour in the North, rather than universal split. It's impossible to know the balance between the two; which makes it very interesting. I hope it happens.
I did that poll, as I mentioned at the time: I had the Social Democrats and IIRC People's Party options.
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
If heaven forbid we do end up with a breakaway from Labour of some significance, I'm sure that the breakaway would include "Labour" somewhere in the brand name. "Progressive Labour" which has the convenient acroynm of PLP for example. It would be more likely to attract some of those loyal to the Labour brand. So I think the YouGov polling is underestimating somewhat the potential of the breakaway, if not necessarily by much.
I believe the electoral commission rules are designed to prevent that kind of thing. Although I guess that if there was a solid body of departing MPs they might be able to retain some sort of claim to the name; I don't really know what challenge process (other than the courts) there might be under the political parties registration act.
Mr. Jim, I agree, but in the case of the US it's only happened once in two centuries.
In the UK, parties can die/diminish more quickly (Liberals, Scottish Labour) but it requires an alternative there to step into the breach. UKIP and the Lib Dems may take chunks out of Labour but I don't think they're in a position to kill off or overtake Labour.
If Corbyn loses heavily in 2020 and stays on as leader, the reds may become the third party in UK politics, but even that's unlikely.
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
I think it's possible there'll be a knock out blow during the campaign but wouldn't rule out the victim being Clinton. If she becomes fatally compromised after key Republicans have backed her it will discredit the entire US elite and make electing Trump look like a necessary evil to clear out the system.
This is desperate wishful thinking. I keep hearing the pro-Trump (or is that more anti-HRC) people on here wittering on about it's like the EU Referendum as though Trump has millions of supporters who will stay silent until November and sweep him to power.
First, I don't "get" Trump and don't know why so many people do. He's a boy sent on a man's errand. He's out of his depth - I know it, he knows it and he's thrashing around saying "look at me, look at me" like a petulant child.
Clinton's not perfect - Obama had to go through the whole Rev Wright nonsense and replays of things he said in 2002 etc, etc. However, she has experience of Government and if you show me someone who has never made mistakes, I'll show you someone who has never done anything at all. She was always the brains in Team Clinton and she'll be a fine President.
The GOP will purge and regroup as they did after the Goldwater fiasco. I suspect they will go for a woman candidate to take on Kaine in 2020 and after three successive Democratic terms, a moderate Republican will have a huge chance. Put someone else's money (not yours) on Susana Martinez.
Mr Dancer I think the federal nature of the US protests parties there in the sense that there are always places to be successful in. In a more unified state like the UK then death comes abruptly.
The US tends to go for long periods of one party domination when the landscape changes. Reconstruction and New Deal spring to mind. I also seem to remember that until the Gingrich landslide in 1994 the GOP hadn't controlled both houses since before the Great Depression
Another force that holds us back is the unprecedented nepotism and family cliques in politics.
Do we really believe that there is something intrinsically better about the political DNA of a Clinton, Bush, Kinnock, Milliband, Straw, Benn, Rees Mogg, Maude. Johnson, Hurd or Gummer?
How many children take up the same general career as their parents?
I'm a computer programmer because my dad was incredibly interested in computers - it's hardly surprising the same thing happens for politicians and their children.
It is worse in America. I agree that familial interest undoubtedly plays a part, as do connections and simple familiarity with the system. But it's one thing for someone to follow in their father's footsteps as an MP (something which isn't too difficult for the seriously committed and reasonably talented); it's a different matter for them to go right to the top, apparently on little more than family name - or, at a lesser but in some ways no less pernicious level - to be appointed to leading non-elected roles with a thin CV but a fat family tree.
Mr. Jim, I agree, but in the case of the US it's only happened once in two centuries.
In the UK, parties can die/diminish more quickly (Liberals, Scottish Labour) but it requires an alternative there to step into the breach. UKIP and the Lib Dems may take chunks out of Labour but I don't think they're in a position to kill off or overtake Labour.
If Corbyn loses heavily in 2020 and stays on as leader, the reds may become the third party in UK politics, but even that's unlikely.
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Haven't they already?
Yes, ok they have 8 MPs left, but as a political force, they're pretty much non-existant.
I'm reading A Journey by Blair and the second chapter which is about his time before 1997 is an instructive read about what he thought about the problems with the Labour Party in the 1980s.
That is 30 years ago and the world (which includes the UK) is a completely different place with, in particular, the unionised economic environment almost eliminated (apart from in government related areas).
I get the feeling that the current Labour Party by ignoring Blair has forgotten the lessons that they learnt through Kinnock et al.
Mr. Jonathan, the later Republican period would dispute the 'unprecedented' aspect of your claim (or the Pitts, indeed) but I do think it's a fair point that, recently, the greatest asset many politicians possess is a helpful surname.
When you use such terms I never know if you're referring to Kinnock Jnr or Pliny the younger.
There was this family called the Cecils...
There once was a family called Cecil Who for a position could whistle up a member or two Unlike me or you; They'd hit it like a guided missle.
I did that poll, as I mentioned at the time: I had the Social Democrats and IIRC People's Party options.
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
If heaven forbid we do end up with a breakaway from Labour of some significance, I'm sure that the breakaway would include "Labour" somewhere in the brand name. "Progressive Labour" which has the convenient acroynm of PLP for example. It would be more likely to attract some of those loyal to the Labour brand. So I think the YouGov polling is underestimating somewhat the potential of the breakaway, if not necessarily by much.
I believe the electoral commission rules are designed to prevent that kind of thing. Although I guess that if there was a solid body of departing MPs they might be able to retain some sort of claim to the name; I don't really know what challenge process (other than the courts) there might be under the political parties registration act.
If so, someone ought to tell the Socialist Labour Party.
I see Trump has refused to endorse McCain or Ryan despite both of them sticking with him over the last tumultuous week.
McCain will be relieved to not receive the Trump black spot in his hispanic rich Arizona Senate seat fight. I don't discount McCain eventually ditching Trump if his Senate seat looks on the line in the next month.
They are in a tough spot now I think - if they drop their endorsement don't they look petty?
They can give it a few weeks then pin it on something outrageous Trump says or does. It's not like they'll be short of material, and they get to twist the knife by adding an extra news cycle to whatever the anti-Trump story is.
'It is after much soul searching and with great regret that I have to announce that I cannot support a big, stinky loser.'
Possibly something that could be done even while in the EU.
Would it not fall foul of the non-discrimination provisions of EU law? In the same way that benefit restrictions cannot be applied just to non-British but EU citizens?
I think it's possible there'll be a knock out blow during the campaign but wouldn't rule out the victim being Clinton. If she becomes fatally compromised after key Republicans have backed her it will discredit the entire US elite and make electing Trump look like a necessary evil to clear out the system.
This is desperate wishful thinking. I keep hearing the pro-Trump (or is that more anti-HRC) people on here wittering on about it's like the EU Referendum as though Trump has millions of supporters who will stay silent until November and sweep him to power.
First, I don't "get" Trump and don't know why so many people do. He's a boy sent on a man's errand. He's out of his depth - I know it, he knows it and he's thrashing around saying "look at me, look at me" like a petulant child.
Clinton's not perfect - Obama had to go through the whole Rev Wright nonsense and replays of things he said in 2002 etc, etc. However, she has experience of Government and if you show me someone who has never made mistakes, I'll show you someone who has never done anything at all. She was always the brains in Team Clinton and she'll be a fine President.
The GOP will purge and regroup as they did after the Goldwater fiasco. I suspect they will go for a woman candidate to take on Kaine in 2020 and after three successive Democratic terms, a moderate Republican will have a huge chance. Put someone else's money (not yours) on Susana Martinez.
I'm no fan of Trump but I fancy Whitewater and the email scandal might be seen by a few people as more than mere 'mistakes' though.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again in 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Indeed. When a party is in free fall, it lurches further to the extremes. In 2001, post election in UK, Hague (bright and likeable) was hammered in the polls. It was terrible and the IDS took over, a bad situation made worse.
I think Clinton nailed it when she said something like, 'how can you trust Trump with nuclear weapons when he explodes because of a negative tweet!'
The Koch brothers have told their group or political donors they won't / shouldn't fund trump & instead spend the money on getting candidates they like into senate / house of representatives.
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse but it is quite clear that the concern being expressed is about what Trump does after he has the power of the presidency in his hands.
I did that poll, as I mentioned at the time: I had the Social Democrats and IIRC People's Party options.
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
If heaven forbid we do end up with a breakaway from Labour of some significance, I'm sure that the breakaway would include "Labour" somewhere in the brand name. "Progressive Labour" which has the convenient acroynm of PLP for example. It would be more likely to attract some of those loyal to the Labour brand. So I think the YouGov polling is underestimating somewhat the potential of the breakaway, if not necessarily by much.
I believe the electoral commission rules are designed to prevent that kind of thing. Although I guess that if there was a solid body of departing MPs they might be able to retain some sort of claim to the name; I don't really know what challenge process (other than the courts) there might be under the political parties registration act.
If so, someone ought to tell the Socialist Labour Party.
OK, but I believe that when the registration process was launched there were rights for existing parties to their name etc. Registering a new party using the name of one of the existing ones is more problematic (and indeed was partly why the rules came in)
HSBC saying that demand for credit is down among corporates, I don't see what a 0.25% rate cut will do to stoke new demand. I really hope the Bank holds off until we know the extent of the downturn and until we have some kind of plan for our European relationship.
I think it's possible there'll be a knock out blow during the campaign but wouldn't rule out the victim being Clinton. If she becomes fatally compromised after key Republicans have backed her it will discredit the entire US elite and make electing Trump look like a necessary evil to clear out the system.
This is desperate wishful thinking. I keep hearing the pro-Trump (or is that more anti-HRC) people on here wittering on about it's like the EU Referendum as though Trump has millions of supporters who will stay silent until November and sweep him to power.
Clinton's been a sure thing for a matter of days only. It's much too early to call the election and Trump has bounced back from worse before.
Kind of seems like a tipping point, if he can get the polls back within a few points - which is plausible, bounce-wise - he's still in the race, if not the rest of the Republican party drops him and he looks like a loser. If he looks like a loser he's dead: His entire brand is about looking like a winner
Some apocryphal evidence. At least 3 families who shocked me earlier in the year by happily announcing that they were for Trump now say they won't be voting. Another has gone firmly into the Hillary camp on the basis that Trump cannot be allowed near the White House.
I have to say that the reaction to this current round of crass Trump statements does feel different somehow than previous ones. A few days ago I felt he was immune to blowback from his gaffes. Now I'm not so sure. As you say, the next week to ten days will tell us if this is a real sea change, or just post-conference noise.
Too early to really draw any conclusions yet but I sense it could slip away from Trump big time and the GOP could end up with another Goldwater. Equally there is plenty of time for a game changer. Having said that I was expecting a substantial change in tone once he had the nomination locked up.
Unfortunately I think what we see is what we get, in all my years of avidly following US politics I can't say I have ever feared the election of any candidate in the way I fear a Trump victory.
"the drug-testing system does allow for athletes to notify the testing authorities either by sending a text message or ringing a hotline up to one minute before the one-hour window opens and changing it".
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Don't worry, my friend, plenty of us still here and rebuilding one local Council seat at a time.
Once the euphoria dies off and we actually see the May Government in action, I suspect the froth will drop off the Conservative poll numbers as well.
Last time it took seven years from deposing a leader to electoral disaster - this time the Conservatives might do it in four, who knows ?
More fundamentally, however adverse its electoral fortunes (and the Liberals have various previous near-extinction moments to look back on), there remains a place in politics for a liberal party, since there is a clear gap in the market that May's Conservatives, the two potential Labour parties, or any of the others, cannot cover. Indeed on the face of it the gap is bigger than ever, but then history does tend to show that at times of crisis (whether of economy or security) the liberal voice is the first to be squeezed out.
"the drug-testing system does allow for athletes to notify the testing authorities either by sending a text message or ringing a hotline up to one minute before the one-hour window opens and changing it".
No excuse for 3 missed tests.
I think she got off because the first missed test was not her fault and she did everything asked but the testing people didn't show up or something along those lines.
The nostalgia that defines politics is cancer that pervades our entire culture today. They're remaking Ben Hur FFS.
It's not the first remake......
Great stories get re-told, with the latest whizziest technology to make them even more spectacular.....
Potentially, or simply made fresh again with new approaches to the tale.
I'm very comfortable with remakes of even good or great movies and other media - many will be terrible, but I always consider that it is guaranteed that someone who is inclined to dislike remakes on principle, absolutely loves a book, movie, play or whatever, that unbeknownst to them is a retelling or remake of another story.
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
This reply has the easiest and most relevant use of the word Hitler ever.
Hitler.
Without Adolf, what analogy would be used instead? It's such a dismally lazy one.
How so? It's the text book example of someone winning power democratically and then changing the constitution into a one-party dictatorship.
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Don't worry, my friend, plenty of us still here and rebuilding one local Council seat at a time.
Once the euphoria dies off and we actually see the May Government in action, I suspect the froth will drop off the Conservative poll numbers as well.
Last time it took seven years from deposing a leader to electoral disaster - this time the Conservatives might do it in four, who knows ?
More fundamentally, however adverse its electoral fortunes (and the Liberals have various previous near-extinction moments to look back on), there remains a place in politics for a liberal party, since there is a clear gap in the market that May's Conservatives, the two potential Labour parties, or any of the others, cannot cover. Indeed on the face of it the gap is bigger than ever, but then history does tend to show that at times of crisis (whether of economy or security) the liberal voice is the first to be squeezed out.
Yes there's definitely a core 'liberal' vote. But the problem is, it is less than 10% which under FPTP means minimal seats.
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
This reply has the easiest and most relevant use of the word Hitler ever.
Hitler.
Without Adolf, what analogy would be used instead? It's such a dismally lazy one.
How so? It's the text book example of someone winning power democratically and then changing the constitution into a one-party dictatorship.
It doesn't fit her pro-Trump stance. For some a Trump win is all part of the Brexit bandwagon
Mr. Jim, I agree, but in the case of the US it's only happened once in two centuries.
In the UK, parties can die/diminish more quickly (Liberals, Scottish Labour) but it requires an alternative there to step into the breach. UKIP and the Lib Dems may take chunks out of Labour but I don't think they're in a position to kill off or overtake Labour.
If Corbyn loses heavily in 2020 and stays on as leader, the reds may become the third party in UK politics, but even that's unlikely.
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Haven't they already?
Yes, ok they have 8 MPs left, but as a political force, they're pretty much non-existant.
They're in hibernation, trying to survive the deepest winter to take advantage of the spring to come.
Now, that Spring is not guaranteed, there are problems ahead and fruitful circumstances to take advantage of are possible but not certain, but they are not yet gone, even if they have minimal national presence and a terrible inability to be heard.
"the drug-testing system does allow for athletes to notify the testing authorities either by sending a text message or ringing a hotline up to one minute before the one-hour window opens and changing it".
No excuse for 3 missed tests.
I think she got off because the first missed test was not her fault and she did everything asked but the testing people didn't show up or something along those lines.
But then she missed 2 further tests & only then claimed this. One missed test sure, but then you would think after that you would be OTT about this.
I know somebody who was involved in what is a fairly minor Olympic sport & even for such a sport they had it drilled into about this stuff & never to take anything at all without it all been checked out first.
£ continues its 'bounce' after the Services PMI - markets maybe not expecting a rate cut now?
I think expectations are down from 100% to around 80%. The construction figures were better than expected, the manufacturing figures weren't as bad as people made out and the services figures didn't get worse. It doesn't seem like there is a need to cut rates, one of the issues is that no one knows what such a pathetic cut would achieve.
The nostalgia that defines politics is cancer that pervades our entire culture today. They're remaking Ben Hur FFS.
It's not the first remake......
Great stories get re-told, with the latest whizziest technology to make them even more spectacular.....
Potentially, or simply made fresh again with new approaches to the tale.
I'm very comfortable with remakes of even good or great movies and other media - many will be terrible, but I always consider that it is guaranteed that someone who is inclined to dislike remakes on principle, absolutely loves a book, movie, play or whatever, that unbeknownst to them is a retelling or remake of another story.
£ continues its 'bounce' after the Services PMI - markets maybe not expecting a rate cut now?
There is also a short squeeze. As I posted last night, bloomberg have been reporting all week that sterling shorts are at their highest levels in 25 years.
I'm no fan of Trump but I fancy Whitewater and the email scandal might be seen by a few people as more than mere 'mistakes' though.
That's a fair point and against a Rubio, Kasich or a Jeb Bush, it would be hugely significant but sometimes it simply makes you the lesser of two evils.
It's very hard to get anywhere in politics without making enemies or mistakes. It's how you deal with them that matters.
"the drug-testing system does allow for athletes to notify the testing authorities either by sending a text message or ringing a hotline up to one minute before the one-hour window opens and changing it".
No excuse for 3 missed tests.
I think she got off because the first missed test was not her fault and she did everything asked but the testing people didn't show up or something along those lines.
But then she missed 2 further tests & only then claimed this. One missed test sure, but then you would think after that you would be OTT about this.
I know somebody who was involved in what is a fairly minor Olympic sport & even for such a sport they had it drilled into about this stuff & never to take anything at all without it all been checked out first.
Agreed, but it seems the courts sided with her which means she must have had evidence for the doping authorities not turning up for the first missed test.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again in 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Indeed. When a party is in free fall, it lurches further to the extremes. In 2001, post election in UK, Hague (bright and likeable) was hammered in the polls. It was terrible and the IDS took over, a bad situation made worse.
I think Clinton nailed it when she said something like, 'how can you trust Trump with nuclear weapons when he explodes because of a negative tweet!'
By contrast, I thought that Hillary comment was just beyond stupid trivia that lobby hacks eat up.
I noticed that Mrs Khan didn't wear a hijab when she met Obama. She looked all very Western.
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Don't worry, my friend, plenty of us still here and rebuilding one local Council seat at a time.
Once the euphoria dies off and we actually see the May Government in action, I suspect the froth will drop off the Conservative poll numbers as well.
Last time it took seven years from deposing a leader to electoral disaster - this time the Conservatives might do it in four, who knows ?
Similarly, it took the Liberals 20 years to go from entering government in 1931 to virtually nothing. Without adjusting precedents to current circumstances, they don't become terribly helpful.
The Lib Dems while led by Farron can never be an existential threat to the Conservatives because they can never appeal to the centre-right voter.
I did that poll, as I mentioned at the time: I had the Social Democrats and IIRC People's Party options.
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
If heaven forbid we do end up with a breakaway from Labour of some significance, I'm sure that the breakaway would include "Labour" somewhere in the brand name. "Progressive Labour" which has the convenient acroynm of PLP for example. It would be more likely to attract some of those loyal to the Labour brand. So I think the YouGov polling is underestimating somewhat the potential of the breakaway, if not necessarily by much.
I believe the electoral commission rules are designed to prevent that kind of thing. Although I guess that if there was a solid body of departing MPs they might be able to retain some sort of claim to the name; I don't really know what challenge process (other than the courts) there might be under the political parties registration act.
If so, someone ought to tell the Socialist Labour Party.
They were first formed pre-PPRA so were able to retain the name. It's almost certain they wouldn't be able to register it were they a new party now.
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Don't worry, my friend, plenty of us still here and rebuilding one local Council seat at a time.
Once the euphoria dies off and we actually see the May Government in action, I suspect the froth will drop off the Conservative poll numbers as well.
Last time it took seven years from deposing a leader to electoral disaster - this time the Conservatives might do it in four, who knows ?
More fundamentally, however adverse its electoral fortunes (and the Liberals have various previous near-extinction moments to look back on), there remains a place in politics for a liberal party, since there is a clear gap in the market that May's Conservatives, the two potential Labour parties, or any of the others, cannot cover. Indeed on the face of it the gap is bigger than ever, but then history does tend to show that at times of crisis (whether of economy or security) the liberal voice is the first to be squeezed out.
Yes there's definitely a core 'liberal' vote. But the problem is, it is less than 10% which under FPTP means minimal seats.
The nostalgia that defines politics is cancer that pervades our entire culture today. They're remaking Ben Hur FFS.
It's not the first remake......
Great stories get re-told, with the latest whizziest technology to make them even more spectacular.....
Potentially, or simply made fresh again with new approaches to the tale.
I'm very comfortable with remakes of even good or great movies and other media - many will be terrible, but I always consider that it is guaranteed that someone who is inclined to dislike remakes on principle, absolutely loves a book, movie, play or whatever, that unbeknownst to them is a retelling or remake of another story.
everything is unoriginal
except the human centipede, I think.
If the answer is 'The Human Centipede' then you're probably asking the wrong question.
The nostalgia that defines politics is cancer that pervades our entire culture today. They're remaking Ben Hur FFS.
It's not the first remake......
Great stories get re-told, with the latest whizziest technology to make them even more spectacular.....
Potentially, or simply made fresh again with new approaches to the tale.
I'm very comfortable with remakes of even good or great movies and other media - many will be terrible, but I always consider that it is guaranteed that someone who is inclined to dislike remakes on principle, absolutely loves a book, movie, play or whatever, that unbeknownst to them is a retelling or remake of another story.
everything is unoriginal
except the human centipede, I think.
Carpenters The Thing is the only remake I liked more.
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Don't worry, my friend, plenty of us still here and rebuilding one local Council seat at a time.
Once the euphoria dies off and we actually see the May Government in action, I suspect the froth will drop off the Conservative poll numbers as well.
Last time it took seven years from deposing a leader to electoral disaster - this time the Conservatives might do it in four, who knows ?
More fundamentally, however adverse its electoral fortunes (and the Liberals have various previous near-extinction moments to look back on), there remains a place in politics for a liberal party, since there is a clear gap in the market that May's Conservatives, the two potential Labour parties, or any of the others, cannot cover. Indeed on the face of it the gap is bigger than ever, but then history does tend to show that at times of crisis (whether of economy or security) the liberal voice is the first to be squeezed out.
Yes there's definitely a core 'liberal' vote. But the problem is, it is less than 10% which under FPTP means minimal seats.
I'm no fan of Trump but I fancy Whitewater and the email scandal might be seen by a few people as more than mere 'mistakes' though.
That's a fair point and against a Rubio, Kasich or a Jeb Bush, it would be hugely significant but sometimes it simply makes you the lesser of two evils.
It's very hard to get anywhere in politics without making enemies or mistakes. It's how you deal with them that matters.
Re. Whitewater I would want to push that line of argument, I think.
I'm no fan of Trump but I fancy Whitewater and the email scandal might be seen by a few people as more than mere 'mistakes' though.
That's a fair point and against a Rubio, Kasich or a Jeb Bush, it would be hugely significant but sometimes it simply makes you the lesser of two evils.
It's very hard to get anywhere in politics without making enemies or mistakes. It's how you deal with them that matters.
Re. Whitewater I would want to push that line of argument, I think.
I wondered why I disliked Jeremy from the beginning and it's suddenly come to me. It's not just him, it's his fellow travellers too and it takes me back almost half a century.
I went to university from a council estate and after deciding to join a political society, found I had two options. The Labour Club was basically Harold Wilson, but the Socialist Society reviled him as being a class traitor. I joined and found the exaggeration ludicrous. No one just disagreed, they were nazis whose sole aim was to "literally" grind the poor into the dust and return us to Dickensian living. The full range of hyperbole was employed. Middle class know-it-alls explained how the streets of my council estate were populated by urchins with rickets dying of hunger.
I felt embarrassed. Deprivation in a relative sense, yes, but my mother remained pleased with having an inside toilet and enough to eat. I knew that if I'd introduced these people to my former school friends .... embarrassment all round.
Fifty years on, these hyperbole brigade are even worse. The posh have taken over. The hard left misuse words until they no longer have meaning. Perhaps they always have done. Inequality in the UK is not the same as mass starvation in Africa not matter what pampered public school boys think. I sometimes think I was never a proper socialist until I learned to exaggerate everything to a ludicrous degree. You can be angry but you need to retain realism.
Jezza et al will always fail that test. It's not Animal Farm so much as Lord of the Flies.
They were the same 15 - 20 years ago when I was at university and I'm sure there's many similar anecdotes across the board.
For the vague sense of balance, the Tory wing at university were also moonbats, but they had better drinks and a far more finely balanced sense of humour.
For most of those years the Liberals /Lib Dems were the only option for a protest vote,now there is a wide choice,more importantly until 2010 the Lib Dems didn't have a record in government to defend.
Similarly, it took the Liberals 20 years to go from entering government in 1931 to virtually nothing. Without adjusting precedents to current circumstances, they don't become terribly helpful.
The Lib Dems while led by Farron can never be an existential threat to the Conservatives because they can never appeal to the centre-right voter.
It's a concern for this wavering Lib Dem member but the "48%" strategy, if it becomes the USP for the Party from now to 2020, could be very helpful.
I would also note Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy were able to appeal to centre-right voters and I don't see much difference between them and Tim.
I would also note you threw in the word "existential" - no, the LDs aren't but as with Gulliver, the giant can be felled by many small blows and between UKIP, the LDs, SNP, Plaid, Greens and Labour (let alone any "new" party), there are enough possibilities to weaken the Conservatives sufficiently to drag them away from a majority quite apart from gaffes, errors. blunders and all the characteristics of day-to-day Government.
Not now, perhaps, but 2020 is an eternity away and there's a lot of water to flow under a lot of bridges. You're far too astute but I detect a sense from many of the Conservatives on here they already consider 2020 "in the bag".
I did that poll, as I mentioned at the time: I had the Social Democrats and IIRC People's Party options.
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
If heaven forbid we do end up with a breakaway from Labour of some significance, I'm sure that the breakaway would include "Labour" somewhere in the brand name. "Progressive Labour" which has the convenient acroynm of PLP for example. It would be more likely to attract some of those loyal to the Labour brand. So I think the YouGov polling is underestimating somewhat the potential of the breakaway, if not necessarily by much.
I believe the electoral commission rules are designed to prevent that kind of thing. Although I guess that if there was a solid body of departing MPs they might be able to retain some sort of claim to the name; I don't really know what challenge process (other than the courts) there might be under the political parties registration act.
If so, someone ought to tell the Socialist Labour Party.
OK, but I believe that when the registration process was launched there were rights for existing parties to their name etc. Registering a new party using the name of one of the existing ones is more problematic (and indeed was partly why the rules came in)
I would be extremely surprised if the EC took the view that no newly formed UK party would ever again be able to use "Labour" within its name on the grounds that to do so would be to cause confusion with the three (or maybe more) parties that already use the word within their registered name.
It's the 'let's ignore a democratic vote because we like the EU so much' strategy. And once we leave (if we do...) it becomes the 'let's join an undemocratic organisation under far worse terms than before' strategy.
I'm no fan of Trump but I fancy Whitewater and the email scandal might be seen by a few people as more than mere 'mistakes' though.
That's a fair point and against a Rubio, Kasich or a Jeb Bush, it would be hugely significant but sometimes it simply makes you the lesser of two evils.
It's very hard to get anywhere in politics without making enemies or mistakes. It's how you deal with them that matters.
Re. Whitewater I would want to push that line of argument, I think.
The Clinton Foundation is problematic too and current
Ian B2 - congressional boundaries are not decided at a national level but at a state level after each 10 year census which reapportions the number of districts for each state.
One of the problems is that minority majority districts were brought in to make sure there was ethnic minority representation in Congress but these actually work against the Dems. For example in Alabama, there is one heavily Democratic minority majority and the other 6 districts are Republican
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again on 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Interesting comparison. The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate. If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020. Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
Maybe but the party base mood is the same, they are fed up with losing RINO nominees like McCain and Romney telling them they need to be Democrat lite much like Labour members were fed up with leaders too close to the Tories. Thus if Trump does lose the base may decide he was too moderate and socially liberal and pick a true, hardcore social conservative in 2020 like Ted Cruz (who the GOP elite also loathe despite his clashes with Trump)
Another issue is that the US system gives prizes to all. If Clinton wins the Presidency, then Congress and the State legislatures will deliver even bigger majorities to the Republicans than at present. So hardcore Republicans will be able to point to plenty of wins, to back up their argument that they need a hardcore candidate.
I think it's possible there'll be a knock out blow during the campaign but wouldn't rule out the victim being Clinton. If she becomes fatally compromised after key Republicans have backed her it will discredit the entire US elite and make electing Trump look like a necessary evil to clear out the system.
This is desperate wishful thinking. I keep hearing the pro-Trump (or is that more anti-HRC) people on here wittering on about it's like the EU Referendum as though Trump has millions of supporters who will stay silent until November and sweep him to power.
First, I don't "get" Trump and don't know why so many people do. He's a boy sent on a man's errand. He's out of his depth - I know it, he knows it and he's thrashing around saying "look at me, look at me" like a petulant child.
Clinton's not perfect - Obama had to go through the whole Rev Wright nonsense and replays of things he said in 2002 etc, etc. However, she has experience of Government and if you show me someone who has never made mistakes, I'll show you someone who has never done anything at all. She was always the brains in Team Clinton and she'll be a fine President.
The GOP will purge and regroup as they did after the Goldwater fiasco. I suspect they will go for a woman candidate to take on Kaine in 2020 and after three successive Democratic terms, a moderate Republican will have a huge chance. Put someone else's money (not yours) on Susana Martinez.
I'm no fan of Trump but I fancy Whitewater and the email scandal might be seen by a few people as more than mere 'mistakes' though.
Hillary Clinton's big political problem is that she can't fake sincerity - of which her husband is a master. I agree with Stodge, her public service record is solid excepting the standard couple of muck ups. She is a competent, if unexciting, candidate.
Mr. P, Williams is a full-blown moron. Literally claimed there's a magic money tree because the Bank of England can print money, and argued that people have a right to spit [at Conservatives entering conference].
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
This reply has the easiest and most relevant use of the word Hitler ever.
Hitler.
Without Adolf, what analogy would be used instead? It's such a dismally lazy one.
How so? It's the text book example of someone winning power democratically and then changing the constitution into a one-party dictatorship.
Well, he "won" power in a behind-closed-doors stitchup after failing to get a majority in a PR system...
The Lib Dems should be more worried about not disappearing entirely themselves.
Don't worry, my friend, plenty of us still here and rebuilding one local Council seat at a time.
Once the euphoria dies off and we actually see the May Government in action, I suspect the froth will drop off the Conservative poll numbers as well.
Last time it took seven years from deposing a leader to electoral disaster - this time the Conservatives might do it in four, who knows ?
More fundamentally, however adverse its electoral fortunes (and the Liberals have various previous near-extinction moments to look back on), there remains a place in politics for a liberal party, since there is a clear gap in the market that May's Conservatives, the two potential Labour parties, or any of the others, cannot cover. Indeed on the face of it the gap is bigger than ever, but then history does tend to show that at times of crisis (whether of economy or security) the liberal voice is the first to be squeezed out.
Yes there's definitely a core 'liberal' vote. But the problem is, it is less than 10% which under FPTP means minimal seats.
OT: NIESR updated post-Brexit economic forecast for 2016/17
GDP +1.7%, +1.0 likely contraction Q3 2016, 50% chance of a technical recession.
Inflation to 3.1% by end 2017, unemployment to 5.6%. Budget surplus deferred to 2020/1.
The report supports my own calculations of a slowdown rather than recession. A jolt of inflation might be good for us, nominal growth of 5% per year looks attractive right now. A few years of 5% nominal growth with a 3% deficit and our debt/GDP looks a lot more favourable.
Whitman was of course GOP candidate for California governor in 2010. The support of her and a New York GOP congressman for Hillary along with scathing comments by Kasich, Jeb Bush and McCain and Romney about Trump shows the GOP leadership and congressmen are now increasingly as divorced from their nominee and party base as the Labour leadership and MPs are from their leader and activists. However just as with a Corbyn loss there is no guarantee a Trump loss will restore the party to the moderates indeed increasingly Republican voters are arguing much like Labour members that a Trump loss will be the elite's fault for failing to rally behind their man. Thus if Trump loses in November it is not impossible he could run in the primaries again in 2020 and win, much like Corbyn or maybe someone even more conservative could do so
Indeed. When a party is in free fall, it lurches further to the extremes. In 2001, post election in UK, Hague (bright and likeable) was hammered in the polls. It was terrible and the IDS took over, a bad situation made worse.
I think Clinton nailed it when she said something like, 'how can you trust Trump with nuclear weapons when he explodes because of a negative tweet!'
By contrast, I thought that Hillary comment was just beyond stupid trivia that lobby hacks eat up.
I noticed that Mrs Khan didn't wear a hijab when she met Obama. She looked all very Western.
I simply don't understand and find, frankly, distasteful the attacks on Mr and Mrs Khan. I caught the bulk of an interview they gave to Channel 4 the other day. They seemed like perfectly normal parents who had lost a son who had fought for his country and rightly rather resented the way Trump suggested that they must automatically not be patriotic Americans simply because of their religion and that there was something sinister about the mother not speaking. She was well able to speak during the interview and spoke like any mother who has had an unimaginable and painful loss. Quite apart from anything else, Trump seems to lack some sort of basic human empathy. And in regard to this (and not just this) he lacks judgment.
For most of those years the Liberals /Lib Dems were the only option for a protest vote,now there is a wide choice,more importantly until 2010 the Lib Dems didn't have a record in government to defend.
UKIP were founded in 1991 and the Greens in 1985, so they were available to vote for. The record in Government is a two edged sword (tuition fees vs raising the income tax threshhold), to a certain extent it does away with the 'wasted vote' argument which still applies to UKIP and The Greens. Some on here have said that the Coalition was not a bad government.
It's the 'let's ignore a democratic vote because we like the EU so much' strategy. And once we leave (if we do...) it becomes the 'let's join an undemocratic organisation under far worse terms than before' strategy.'
Problem is that after abolition of tuition fees & votes for prisoners, the Lib Dems love of all things EU was their only other key policy that differentiated them from other parties.
I did that poll, as I mentioned at the time: I had the Social Democrats and IIRC People's Party options.
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
If heaven forbid we do end up with a breakaway from Labour of some significance, I'm sure that the breakaway would include "Labour" somewhere in the brand name. "Progressive Labour" which has the convenient acroynm of PLP for example. It would be more likely to attract some of those loyal to the Labour brand. So I think the YouGov polling is underestimating somewhat the potential of the breakaway, if not necessarily by much.
I believe the electoral commission rules are designed to prevent that kind of thing. Although I guess that if there was a solid body of departing MPs they might be able to retain some sort of claim to the name; I don't really know what challenge process (other than the courts) there might be under the political parties registration act.
If so, someone ought to tell the Socialist Labour Party.
They were first formed pre-PPRA so were able to retain the name. It's almost certain they wouldn't be able to register it were they a new party now.
That's my view - certainly if I sent off an application now to register the "New sensible and in touch Labour Party" it would clearly be rejected. The question is whether the commission would take a different view if the application came from a bunch of previously career labour politicians?
They would of course have to choose something more appropriate.
OT: NIESR updated post-Brexit economic forecast for 2016/17
GDP +1.7%, +1.0 likely contraction Q3 2016, 50% chance of a technical recession.
Inflation to 3.1% by end 2017, unemployment to 5.6%. Budget surplus deferred to 2020/1.
The report supports my own calculations of a slowdown rather than recession. A jolt of inflation might be good for us, nominal growth of 5% per year looks attractive right now. A few years of 5% nominal growth with a 3% deficit and our debt/GDP looks a lot more favourable.
Sadly, for every silver lining there is a cloud. Lot of hysteria over the PMI numbers this morning. I think the BoE are going to have to do something to stop an attack of the vapours.
Miss Cyclefree, I do think the attacks on the Khans may bite Trump. There's a strong pro-military sentiment there, and attacking the parents of a soldier who died in the line of duty won't play well.
Attacking a minority, whilst distasteful, may work electorally, but attacking the military, or being seen to, is another kettle of monkeys.
Comments
https://infacts.org/government-use-taxation-restrict-immigration/
Possibly something that could be done even while in the EU.
Great stories get re-told, with the latest whizziest technology to make them even more spectacular.....
A good sign that they're ready to win will be when they stop obsessing about "RINOs" and "the MSM".
The rules on age of consulship and repeatedly holding the office were suspended about a century prior to the Republic's demise, for Aemilianus Scipio, firstly to sort out Iberia, then destroy Carthage (Third Punic War). Later, Marian reforms [apparently] helped professionalise armies whilst also helping to shift loyalty from state to generals. The build-up of familial power rather than meritocratic appointment took a long time to happen, but helped establish a firm elite in the political sphere, which also meant the military world became increasingly under the sway of the few top dogs.
It was very much a boiled frog approach, rather than a big bang. But, even with that, Caesar got assassinated to stop him being dictator for life* to try and restore the Republic.
These changes happen by small degrees. We're seeing something comparable with the idiotic approach of Labour to constitutional tinkering in a short-sighted, narrow-minded and incompetent effort to provide itself with everlasting Celtic fiefdoms.
We're also seeing the continual erosion of free speech, the worst moment of which was a march of thousands, some dressed as suicide bombers and others holding placards calling for those who insult Islam to be beheaded, getting a police escort through London.
Of course, it's harder to identify such trends whilst in the middle of them, and hard to arrest them when there are useful idiots (like the Pope responding to the Hebdo murders by saying if a man insulted his mother he'd punch him).
*Well, technically it didn't, it just shortened the term of his holding the office.
It's been a disastrous few days for Trump, no question. The American parties seem to be even looser coalitions than the main British parties. To be fair, Trump still has a lot of time - the debates will, as always, be significant. Obama's put down was wonderful - the pauses between sentences are just theatrical now but the knife thrusts are delivered so well. He's older but he's still a class act.
Fascinating to see May revealing not so much her inner Thatcher but her inner Heseltine and a sense of the Britain we might have had in 1990 under different circumstances. This is active, interventionist Government with a policy for everything and a commission for everything else.
It's not a million miles from Blair and there's an argument the Social Democrats are back in Government, not the Jenkins people but the Owenites. This is a Government David Owen can support with comfort. I suppose the question I'd ask Conservatives - does any of this matter as long as you are in power ? I suspect not.
We're already hearing some Labour voices here say there'll be either no splitters or tiny numbers, if Corbyn retains the leadership, and that's when they're clearly massively unhappy to have him there.
But for all that, while an individual politician might find it difficult to subvert democracy in the US without some overwhelming national movement - given the need to change the constitution and, hence, the need to have many state legislatures supportive, as well as huge majorities in both Houses - there can be no doubt that for much of its time, *attitudes* meant that the US was a very imperfect democracy, whether that be the effective bar on blacks voting in the South or the limits on freedom of speech that the culture of McCarthy and his likes achieved.
Trump is much more in the McCarthy mould and though, like the original, he's not a great politician, someone who was a more skilled demagogue might change what's seen as socially or politically acceptable sufficiently to subvert meaningful democracy.
The trick of all successful autocrats is to persuade a sizable minority that they need to give up their freedom in one area in order to enable the leadership (whether individual, collective, party or class) to gain the security of protection against some perceived threat. Once you conjure the threat, you create the condition.
In the UK, parties can die/diminish more quickly (Liberals, Scottish Labour) but it requires an alternative there to step into the breach. UKIP and the Lib Dems may take chunks out of Labour but I don't think they're in a position to kill off or overtake Labour.
If Corbyn loses heavily in 2020 and stays on as leader, the reds may become the third party in UK politics, but even that's unlikely.
Which of course is almost the case in the House: am I right in thinking the only way the Dems could get fairer (or even favourable) boundaries is to take control under the current fiddled ones?
First, I don't "get" Trump and don't know why so many people do. He's a boy sent on a man's errand. He's out of his depth - I know it, he knows it and he's thrashing around saying "look at me, look at me" like a petulant child.
Clinton's not perfect - Obama had to go through the whole Rev Wright nonsense and replays of things he said in 2002 etc, etc. However, she has experience of Government and if you show me someone who has never made mistakes, I'll show you someone who has never done anything at all. She was always the brains in Team Clinton and she'll be a fine President.
The GOP will purge and regroup as they did after the Goldwater fiasco. I suspect they will go for a woman candidate to take on Kaine in 2020 and after three successive Democratic terms, a moderate Republican will have a huge chance. Put someone else's money (not yours) on Susana Martinez.
The US tends to go for long periods of one party domination when the landscape changes. Reconstruction and New Deal spring to mind. I also seem to remember that until the Gingrich landslide in 1994 the GOP hadn't controlled both houses since before the Great Depression
Yes, ok they have 8 MPs left, but as a political force, they're pretty much non-existant.
That is 30 years ago and the world (which includes the UK) is a completely different place with, in particular, the unionised economic environment almost eliminated (apart from in government related areas).
I get the feeling that the current Labour Party by ignoring Blair has forgotten the lessons that they learnt through Kinnock et al.
Who for a position could whistle
up a member or two
Unlike me or you;
They'd hit it like a guided missle.
Once the euphoria dies off and we actually see the May Government in action, I suspect the froth will drop off the Conservative poll numbers as well.
Last time it took seven years from deposing a leader to electoral disaster - this time the Conservatives might do it in four, who knows ?
Or words to that effect.
I think Clinton nailed it when she said something like, 'how can you trust Trump with nuclear weapons when he explodes because of a negative tweet!'
Unfortunately I think what we see is what we get, in all my years of avidly following US politics I can't say I have ever feared the election of any candidate in the way I fear a Trump victory.
No excuse for 3 missed tests.
I'm very comfortable with remakes of even good or great movies and other media - many will be terrible, but I always consider that it is guaranteed that someone who is inclined to dislike remakes on principle, absolutely loves a book, movie, play or whatever, that unbeknownst to them is a retelling or remake of another story.
How so? It's the text book example of someone winning power democratically and then changing the constitution into a one-party dictatorship.
The full press release.
Now, that Spring is not guaranteed, there are problems ahead and fruitful circumstances to take advantage of are possible but not certain, but they are not yet gone, even if they have minimal national presence and a terrible inability to be heard.
I know somebody who was involved in what is a fairly minor Olympic sport & even for such a sport they had it drilled into about this stuff & never to take anything at all without it all been checked out first.
except the human centipede, I think.
There is also a short squeeze. As I posted last night, bloomberg have been reporting all week that sterling shorts are at their highest levels in 25 years.
It's very hard to get anywhere in politics without making enemies or mistakes. It's how you deal with them that matters.
I noticed that Mrs Khan didn't wear a hijab when she met Obama. She looked all very Western.
The Lib Dems while led by Farron can never be an existential threat to the Conservatives because they can never appeal to the centre-right voter.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm
For the vague sense of balance, the Tory wing at university were also moonbats, but they had better drinks and a far more finely balanced sense of humour.
The US media seem to be assuming there is no way the Khan thing can backfire.
That is not necessarily the case.
'Since 1974 it has generally been between 15% and 25%, with the obvious exception of 2015.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm'
For most of those years the Liberals /Lib Dems were the only option for a protest vote,now there is a wide choice,more importantly until 2010 the Lib Dems didn't have a record in government to defend.
I would also note Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy were able to appeal to centre-right voters and I don't see much difference between them and Tim.
I would also note you threw in the word "existential" - no, the LDs aren't but as with Gulliver, the giant can be felled by many small blows and between UKIP, the LDs, SNP, Plaid, Greens and Labour (let alone any "new" party), there are enough possibilities to weaken the Conservatives sufficiently to drag them away from a majority quite apart from gaffes, errors. blunders and all the characteristics of day-to-day Government.
Not now, perhaps, but 2020 is an eternity away and there's a lot of water to flow under a lot of bridges. You're far too astute but I detect a sense from many of the Conservatives on here they already consider 2020 "in the bag".
I wouldn't.
OT: NIESR updated post-Brexit economic forecast for 2016/17
GDP +1.7%, +1.0 likely contraction Q3 2016, 50% chance of a technical recession.
Inflation to 3.1% by end 2017, unemployment to 5.6%. Budget surplus deferred to 2020/1.
It's the 'let's ignore a democratic vote because we like the EU so much' strategy. And once we leave (if we do...) it becomes the 'let's join an undemocratic organisation under far worse terms than before' strategy.
Some states have now brought in independent boundary commissions but a lot of gerrymandering still goes on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_3rd_congressional_district
One of the problems is that minority majority districts were brought in to make sure there was ethnic minority representation in Congress but these actually work against the Dems. For example in Alabama, there is one heavily Democratic minority majority and the other 6 districts are Republican
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama's_7th_congressional_district
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/760761055064784896
@LBC: WATCH: @zoesqwilliams: I backed Jeremy Corbyn - but now I think he is incompetent https://t.co/MO2HMcxUXn https://t.co/cyMxX9Ewmp
(Aiming for understatement).
I thought the UKIP NEC decision was not going to be announced until midday?
It seems May's leadership strategy of not imploding is currently working well as PM too.
Surprised she's jumped ship.
The record in Government is a two edged sword (tuition fees vs raising the income tax threshhold), to a certain extent it does away with the 'wasted vote' argument which still applies to UKIP and The Greens. Some on here have said that the Coalition was not a bad government.
'Mr. Stodge, but it's not the 48% strategy.
It's the 'let's ignore a democratic vote because we like the EU so much' strategy. And once we leave (if we do...) it becomes the 'let's join an undemocratic organisation under far worse terms than before' strategy.'
Problem is that after abolition of tuition fees & votes for prisoners, the Lib Dems love of all things EU was their only other key policy that differentiated them from other parties.
They would of course have to choose something more appropriate.
Attacking a minority, whilst distasteful, may work electorally, but attacking the military, or being seen to, is another kettle of monkeys.