On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
The problem is that members signing up from January to July were signed up on a website which promised them that if they paid their membership and signed up, they would be able to vote in leadership elections. If they wanted to draw a line, then it cannot be drawn retrospectively. It is a clear breach of contract, although I thought the judge would have probably given the Labour Party the option of allowing those members to vote or offering them a refund of their membership fees, rather than get involved in whether the NEC were right to interpret their rules in the way in which they did.
The underlying loyalty to a political party of anyone who signed up just to be able to vote in a leadership election should be assumed to be pretty slim. Most would accept the refund.
That's Labour's fault for not stating that there would be a cooling off period before you can vote.
I don't think that offering a refund would be a particular problem, if the appeal judge is more permissive than the one today.
May must call Fox into her office now and order him to explain himself. If he fails to provide an adequate explanation then he must be dismissed. I'm worried. This could be the first disaster of May's premiership. If these allegations are true then the credibility of May's judgement will be in tatters. Moreover, Fox is Brexit's leading poster boy. It will look terrible for that particular cause if one of their leaders is exposed as an anti-democratic stooge. The Brexiteers have already embraced Trump and Putin; they can't afford to add another nasty to the list. Fox has already turned himself into a laughing stock with his ludicrous notion about striking unilateral trade deals with EU member states. It's clear that May only appointed him to appease the Tory hard-right. This is starting to look like a misguided appointment that will only do May harm.
Is it really that worrying?
It is a pretty weak piece of 'investigative' journalism with a lot of speculation and no evidence other than a bizarre publishing deal.
That is hardly damning evidence of any wrong-doing.
Ex minister trades his reputation for a few bob from very dodgy people. Hardly the scoop of the century. Fox's judgement about who he deals with has never been the best and I was dismayed to see him appointed to the Cabinet.
No doubt Fox would go on a la Blair/Mandelson/Hurd about how important it is to have a dialogue with the Kazakhs/Azeris/Serbs, whoever. They might even have a point. But until a law is passed so that no Parliamentarian, or ex Parliamentarian can ever take money from a foreign potentate then this will continue to happen. See one Hilary Clinton in this connection also. Personally, I would be in favour of such a law. But I'd also be in favour of getting rid of subsidised booze for our elected representatives.
The Azeri regime is very bad though. Imagine if a criminal gang took over a country.
Yes, but the next gen of planes (787, A350) are significantly more efficient - both in terms of more modern engines, and being generally much lighter. (And having somewhat better aerodynamics.)
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Qantas and BA started non-stop London -> Sydney & Melbourne. If the flight took off at 10am UK time, it would land at 2pm the next day in Oz, which would be as good as it got for avoiding jet lag. Much better than the way most current flights work which involve you spending two nights on the plane, and then being deposited into the taxi rank blinking and startled at 6:30am.
Those timings might work, although if it's a 20 hour flight with 10 hours' time difference, it would take off around 14:00 from London and land in Sydney around 08:00 two days later!
You're right about the 787 and A350, not been on the latter but the former is impressive for the larger windows and lower cabin altitude. Much quieter than the 777 on which I usually travel too.
Hmmm... I do the London -> Doha -> Melbourne route fairly regularly. You take off at 9:15 UK time, and land in Melbourne the following day at 5pm.
If you lost three hours due to not having to stop in Doha, that would mean taking off at 9:15, and landing at 2pm the following day, which sounds pretty awesome to me. I could go to the hotel, have a swim, unpack, have dinner, and be ready for work the next day.
You'd also have just spent 20 hours or so on a plane with dirty air and an uncomfortable business bed (unless you go first and get the suite, of course).
The three times I went to Australia I stayed overnight in Hong Kong, a nice way to break up the long journey. Though work was only a passing concern for two of those times.
Typically, I'm in Australia for 24 to 72 hours. All I want to do is minimise the time away from home.
Fair enough, if you have actual work to do there and go often I could understand the appeal of the direct flight.
As an aside its amazing how often PB conversations veer into flying habits!
Do any of you frequent long-distance flyers have any sense of guilt about your outsized carbon footprints, or do you just assume that you're worth it?
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Having an education and having political acumen aren't necessarily conjunctive.
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
I had him added to the Betfair market after I saw a video of him presenting JC to a rally. Did a little more research and discovered he is a very strong Corbyn supporter. It is my bet at 79/1, although someone kindly obliged me for about £25 at around 300/1. Certainly a live contender I think, although like Clive Lewis, he only entered parliament last year.
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Having an education and having political acumen aren't necessarily conjunctive.
Didn’t he make an almight cock-up over something recently? Failed to oppose something he should have strongly opposed or similar?
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Richard Burgon is currently my biggest green on that market. And it was me who took your £5 offer
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Having an education and having political acumen aren't necessarily conjunctive.
Didn’t he make an almight cock-up over something recently? Failed to oppose something he should have strongly opposed or similar?
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Having an education and having political acumen aren't necessarily conjunctive.
Sure, although a city minister that can't be arsed with the city seems to go beyond a lack of political acumen and stray into the territory of gnat-brain-swaps that I mentioned earlier. (By the way apologies to any gnats)
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Richard Burgon is currently my biggest green on that market.
Snap! Mine also. You owe me a bottle of wine for getting him added to the market if it comes good!
Mr Omnium - we all have intellectual blind spots and perhaps Burgon's is Socialism. Perhaps his adherence to a creed that failed where ever it was tried and ultimately defeated, badly, wherever it failed is his.
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Richard Burgon is currently my biggest green on that market.
Snap! Mine also. You owe me a bottle of wine for getting him added to the market if it comes good!
May must call Fox into her office now and order him to explain himself. If he fails to provide an adequate explanation then he must be dismissed. I'm worried. This could be the first disaster of May's premiership. If these allegations are true then the credibility of May's judgement will be in tatters. Moreover, Fox is Brexit's leading poster boy. It will look terrible for that particular cause if one of their leaders is exposed as an anti-democratic stooge. The Brexiteers have already embraced Trump and Putin; they can't afford to add another nasty to the list. Fox has already turned himself into a laughing stock with his ludicrous notion about striking unilateral trade deals with EU member states. It's clear that May only appointed him to appease the Tory hard-right. This is starting to look like a misguided appointment that will only do May harm.
I've no knowledge of Dr Fox's case, but I do recall that I was approached by an Azerbaijani group in around 2009 and offered a substantial (though unspecified) contribution to campaign funds; they hoped that in return I would take a 'friendly interest' in Azerbaijani affairs. (I said that I thought such a donation might be viewed as dodgy and I'd rather not.) This was unusual enough to stand out in my memory, and I wonder how much of this effort has been going on.
A very interesting post. I know they that Azerbaijan is renowned for its petrodollar-fuelled forms of diplomacy.
The gap is still widening day after day, the only change is that since Wednesday it grows at a smaller rate.
Looks like a repeat of 1996, so far, in both the vote share and the number of Electoral Votes (my estimate is Hillary 364 Trump 174).
But things are still getting worse everyday for Trump, I won't be surprised to see a 1964 style victory for Hillary by election day.
You have changed prediction on the general election in the U.S. more times than Trump has changed wives. I am sticking to my prediction of a narrow Hillary win, I expect Trump to do better than expected in the debates.
@chrisshipitv: Corbyn/McDonnell now openly criticising Labour HQ for its decision to appeal High Court ruling. Leader criticises his own party. What a mess
Yes, Labour under Corbyn is a mess in every way you choose to name. Nothing to do with Corbyn's leadership of course.
Agreed, but asking as devil's advocate: Could Corbyn ever lead the Labour 'moderate' MPs? Aren't they unleadable by someone of his views? Imagine Ken Clarke leading the present set of Tory MPs. The set up just isn't sustainable.
Why leave it to chance? If you go out to overwhelm, you overwhelm.
But the CIA, and the other opponents and enemies of Trump failed to destroy him. (see all the useless plots of NeverTrump, including the latest one)
Trump himself destroyed himself with his mouth.
It's a case of someone being proven invincible against all others, but himself. ( a bit Shakespearean )
Some of the people involved in this push were not really that actively involved prior. In fact some of them aren't your GOP grandees at all. That is a critical difference. Remember how many people who can't stand him at all, actually endorsed him? I said it before, the GOP are doing the heavy lifting but its not the high profile figures (yet), its others. Clinton can stay relatively clear as there are others who are weighing in now who don't have the obvious affiliation.
They had to let the masses have their say in the primaries but thats over. This is different, its not an internal candidate anymore, its running the country. And the target is not just the GOP primary voters, its independents and so on, who can swing the national decision. Peel those off and its over and done. This isn't some annoyed hierarchy here, some people within the GOP, within government and within the IC are genuinely worried about Trump presidency for the country.
Secondly, doing good damage is about using your strengths, exploiting your opponents weaknesses and timing. Letting Trump open his trap and then not actively using it against him is missing elements two and three. His acquaintance Putin (who Trump cant quite say whether he has met or not) would appreciate the judo like reference.
Thirdly, and I'd thought this was obvious, in the absence of a single significant precision way to finish your opponent, throwing the kitchen sink at it to overwhelm is perfectly legit. Why wait to see what each one does, just keep firing and firing until something sticks and do not stop.
When you think about its not one thing Trump has said in domestic political terms thats done him sustainable damage. Its that sense that he doesn't have the interests of the country at heart that is doing it. Its character, and thats come out of the Russia links.
Once they get on to his general sense of meanness of character and make that stick as well, he's finished.
On BF a little while ago I layed Richard Burgon to be next Labour leader at 99-1. Only a fiver, but I thought it was pretty much free money. Interestingly someone is trying to back him at 79-1 now. My first instincts were to lay everything that they wanted (based on his shadow city ministerial career) , but I thought I'd research him a little more before doing so. I was shocked to learn that he's actually got a decent education (English, St Johns Cambridge is seems). Did he have a brain-swap with a gnat at some point?
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Richard Burgon is currently my biggest green on that market.
He's a little green for me too still. I tend not to lay anything above about 33-1 that'll potentially not be settled for years when that ties up funds. (Or decades with Corbyn involved)
Mr Omnium - we all have intellectual blind spots and perhaps Burgon's is Socialism. Perhaps his adherence to a creed that failed where ever it was tried and ultimately defeated, badly, wherever it failed is his.
I wasn't criticising his views. I've no idea what they are really. It was his total indifference to his brief as shadow city minister that was of concern.
Should the 150+ nominations by CLPs to the Labour leadership now be declared invalid, because only members with more than 6 months membership were allowed to take part in the meetings that made a nomination? Views please. Or maybe we should just leave it all to the courts to decide.
Should the 150+ nominations by CLPs to the Labour leadership now be declared invalid, because only members with more than 6 months membership were allowed to take part in the meetings that made a nomination? Views please. Or maybe we should just leave it all to the courts to decide.
Or maybe just grab some more popcorn and have a good old laugh.
The gap is still widening day after day, the only change is that since Wednesday it grows at a smaller rate.
Looks like a repeat of 1996, so far, in both the vote share and the number of Electoral Votes (my estimate is Hillary 364 Trump 174).
But things are still getting worse everyday for Trump, I won't be surprised to see a 1964 style victory for Hillary by election day.
You have changed prediction on the general election in the U.S. more times than Trump has changed wives. I am sticking to my prediction of a narrow Hillary win, I expect Trump to do better than expected in the debates.
Trump could do well in the debates but it could also damage him massively. If he goes on one of those tirades against Clinton that comes across as highly sexist then it could put off women voters. Though Trump seems to be doing badly with that demographic anyway, the danger is it could cause some republican female voters to stay at home not drive them to Clinton.
Put it this I think it's nailed on he says something highly controversial during at least one of the debates whether it will damage him fatally or not remains to be seen.
An anecdote about May: my uncle, who is on the left (never voted Conservative) said that he might consider voting for her. Worth noting he has nothing but contempt for Corbyn.
Got to say I was really rather surprised. He also said he saw her as totally different to Thatcher.
..is there any way back for labour after today? Why, as a labour MP, would you continue to serve under Corbyn when Labours become such a hopeless, impotent electoral force? The next general election is going to be thousands of Angry corbynites slagging off Tory voters (who they need to win back).
Quite an important result. I think that makes it pretty clear that Smith will not win, as well as changing the overall balance, which will facilitate rules changes on future leadership ballots etc.
I'm ranting here, but the Labour plp have been shown up as totally spineless and hopeless. This isn't like 80s - the hard left have totally and utterly succeeded in their aim to take over the party.
Quite an important result. I think that makes it pretty clear that Smith will not win, as well as changing the overall balance, which will facilitate rules changes on future leadership ballots etc.
So, you are sipping champagne then this evening Nick?
Ann Black 100,999 Christine Shawcroft 97,510 Claudia Webbe 92,377 Darren Williams 87,003 Rhea Wolfson 85,687 Peter Willsman 82,863
Ellie Reeves 72,514 Eddie Izzard 70,993 Bex Bailey 67,205 Johanna Baxter 60,367 Parmjit Dhanda 53,838 Luke Akehurst 48,632 John Gallagher 22,678 Amanat Gul 14,693
Grassroots Alliance takes all seats. +2 compared to 2014. Reeves and Baxter voted out.
An anecdote about May: my uncle, who is on the left (never voted Conservative) said that he might consider voting for her. Worth noting he has nothing but contempt for Corbyn.
Got to say I was really rather surprised. He also said he saw her as totally different to Thatcher.
Add my Mum to that list of Mrs May converts. I have no words to express how unlikely an event this is. My Mum still calls Thatcher 'The Snatcher'. She has never voted Conservative. She's 80 in January. Maybe I should be looking into nursing homes.
I'm ranting here, but the Labour plp have been shown up as totally spineless and hopeless. This isn't like 80s - the hard left have totally and utterly succeeded in their aim to take over the party.
The PLP have to let the leadership race play out, but I imagine once deselections start that will be used as justification for breaking away.
Is there any mistake left that Labour has not made in the last 16 months that it could still make? It's thrown away an election it should have won, elected a dubious and rather dim failure by misrepresenting its own rules to look groovy, had the entire shadow cabinet resign and twice sued its own members.
I'm thinking an attempted coup is about the only one left. On current form, Macdonnell is probably talking to the CIGS about it right now.
Ann Black is the moderate of the Left slate. Shawcroft is Labour Briefing/Labour Representation Committee Webbe is a Islington Cllr Williams is from Welsh Grassroots Alliance Wolfson is Momentum Willsman is from Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, former Bennite organizer from the 80's London political scene.
The £1.3bn government “troubled families” scheme to tackle entrenched social problems following the riots in 2011 has had no discernible impact on unemployment, truancy or criminality, an unpublished Whitehall report has found.
It said the success criteria were also vague – families could be deemed “turned around” even while the children were still persistently truant or committing crime, just so long as they did so less frequently than they had done before.
So Johnny how many cars have you nicked this month, ohhh I think about 10, was f##king cold out, so I stayed in and played on my half inched PS4....So less than last month...its a success....
Ann Black 100,999 Christine Shawcroft 97,510 Claudia Webbe 92,377 Darren Williams 87,003 Rhea Wolfson 85,687 Peter Willsman 82,863
Ellie Reeves 72,514 Eddie Izzard 70,993 Bex Bailey 67,205 Johanna Baxter 60,367 Parmjit Dhanda 53,838 Luke Akehurst 48,632 John Gallagher 22,678 Amanat Gul 14,693
Grassroots Alliance takes all seats. +2 compared to 2014. Reeves and Baxter voted out.
Feel so sorry for Johanna Baxter. I thought her interview with Cathy Newman was heartrending.
Ann Black 100,999 Christine Shawcroft 97,510 Claudia Webbe 92,377 Darren Williams 87,003 Rhea Wolfson 85,687 Peter Willsman 82,863
Ellie Reeves 72,514 Eddie Izzard 70,993 Bex Bailey 67,205 Johanna Baxter 60,367 Parmjit Dhanda 53,838 Luke Akehurst 48,632 John Gallagher 22,678 Amanat Gul 14,693
Grassroots Alliance takes all seats. +2 compared to 2014. Reeves and Baxter voted out.
Feel so sorry for Johanna Baxter. I thought her interview with Cathy Newman was heartrending.
Indeed. Honestly I am surprised she went for re-election, not sure I would if I was in her shoes.
Ann Black 100,999 Christine Shawcroft 97,510 Claudia Webbe 92,377 Darren Williams 87,003 Rhea Wolfson 85,687 Peter Willsman 82,863
Ellie Reeves 72,514 Eddie Izzard 70,993 Bex Bailey 67,205 Johanna Baxter 60,367 Parmjit Dhanda 53,838 Luke Akehurst 48,632 John Gallagher 22,678 Amanat Gul 14,693
Grassroots Alliance takes all seats. +2 compared to 2014. Reeves and Baxter voted out.
Feel so sorry for Johanna Baxter. I thought her interview with Cathy Newman was heartrending.
Agree about Baxter, but bluntly there are some names on there that partly explain Corbyn's success. Dhanda used to be my MP and he's a slimy, duplicitous bastard whom nobody liked. His wife stood for PCC and came fourth (bearing in mind that just eleven years ago Labour had half of all seats in Gloucestershire, two with big majorities).
An anecdote about May: my uncle, who is on the left (never voted Conservative) said that he might consider voting for her. Worth noting he has nothing but contempt for Corbyn.
Got to say I was really rather surprised. He also said he saw her as totally different to Thatcher.
The gap is still widening day after day, the only change is that since Wednesday it grows at a smaller rate.
Looks like a repeat of 1996, so far, in both the vote share and the number of Electoral Votes (my estimate is Hillary 364 Trump 174).
But things are still getting worse everyday for Trump, I won't be surprised to see a 1964 style victory for Hillary by election day.
You have changed prediction on the general election in the U.S. more times than Trump has changed wives. I am sticking to my prediction of a narrow Hillary win, I expect Trump to do better than expected in the debates.
Trump could do well in the debates but it could also damage him massively. If he goes on one of those tirades against Clinton that comes across as highly sexist then it could put off women voters. Though Trump seems to be doing badly with that demographic anyway, the danger is it could cause some republican female voters to stay at home not drive them to Clinton.
Put it this I think it's nailed on he says something highly controversial during at least one of the debates whether it will damage him fatally or not remains to be seen.
Trump's advisers will have him debate prepping every night from now until the end of September, Reagan trailed Carter after the conventions in 1980 but won the election in the debates
Other than Peaty, lots of things have gone a bit wrong, where as in London so many things went right / better than expected. Yesterday fencing guy lost to a guy ranked below him in the medal playoff, obviously the cycling didn't go well, the diving girls made a mess of two dives when nobody other than the Chinese were diving well.
Should the 150+ nominations by CLPs to the Labour leadership now be declared invalid, because only members with more than 6 months membership were allowed to take part in the meetings that made a nomination? Views please. Or maybe we should just leave it all to the courts to decide.
CLP nominations have no binding force at all . They are just indicative of those who happened to attend the meeting and are not necessarily a good indicator of how CLP party members will actually vote in a given constituency.Moroeover many CLPs in 2015 did not nominate at all.
The gap is still widening day after day, the only change is that since Wednesday it grows at a smaller rate.
Looks like a repeat of 1996, so far, in both the vote share and the number of Electoral Votes (my estimate is Hillary 364 Trump 174).
But things are still getting worse everyday for Trump, I won't be surprised to see a 1964 style victory for Hillary by election day.
You have changed prediction on the general election in the U.S. more times than Trump has changed wives. I am sticking to my prediction of a narrow Hillary win, I expect Trump to do better than expected in the debates.
Trump could do well in the debates but it could also damage him massively. If he goes on one of those tirades against Clinton that comes across as highly sexist then it could put off women voters. Though Trump seems to be doing badly with that demographic anyway, the danger is it could cause some republican female voters to stay at home not drive them to Clinton.
Put it this I think it's nailed on he says something highly controversial during at least one of the debates whether it will damage him fatally or not remains to be seen.
The debates are equally critical for Clinton. It seems almost impossible that she won't leave several open goals where Trump can paint her as an out of touch Washington insider, similar to Jeb!'s incredulity when Trump attacked the Iraq war.
The £1.3bn government “troubled families” scheme to tackle entrenched social problems following the riots in 2011 has had no discernible impact on unemployment, truancy or criminality, an unpublished Whitehall report has found.
It said the success criteria were also vague – families could be deemed “turned around” even while the children were still persistently truant or committing crime, just so long as they did so less frequently than they had done before.
So Johnny how many cars have you nicked this month, ohhh I think about 10, was f##king cold out, so I stayed in and played on my half inched PS4....So less than last month...its a success....
Councils were given bonuses for "successes". Did anyone exaggerate the successes?
Should the 150+ nominations by CLPs to the Labour leadership now be declared invalid, because only members with more than 6 months membership were allowed to take part in the meetings that made a nomination? Views please. Or maybe we should just leave it all to the courts to decide.
CLP nominations have no binding force at all . They are just indicative of those who happened to attend the meeting and are not necessarily a good indicator of how CLP party members will actually vote in a given constituency.Moroeover many CLPs in 2015 did not nominate at all.
It's also hard to imagine that there were many members in the relevant period who joined with a burning desire to vote for somebody they'd probably never heard of.
Even though there must have been some trying to look to get Corbyn, they would surely be outnumbered by those like that really strange woman the BBC have just interviewed who seems to genuinely think Corbyn will win and deliver Socialism. So it would be most unlikely to change the results.
The £1.3bn government “troubled families” scheme to tackle entrenched social problems following the riots in 2011 has had no discernible impact on unemployment, truancy or criminality, an unpublished Whitehall report has found.
It said the success criteria were also vague – families could be deemed “turned around” even while the children were still persistently truant or committing crime, just so long as they did so less frequently than they had done before.
So Johnny how many cars have you nicked this month, ohhh I think about 10, was f##king cold out, so I stayed in and played on my half inched PS4....So less than last month...its a success....
Councils were given bonuses for "successes". Did anyone exaggerate the successes?
Surely not. With so many things what started out as probably a good idea, resulted in poorly qualified people taking a softly softly approach to addressing a very difficult problem & motivated not to tackle the hardest cases & misreport others.
The gap is still widening day after day, the only change is that since Wednesday it grows at a smaller rate.
Looks like a repeat of 1996, so far, in both the vote share and the number of Electoral Votes (my estimate is Hillary 364 Trump 174).
But things are still getting worse everyday for Trump, I won't be surprised to see a 1964 style victory for Hillary by election day.
You have changed prediction on the general election in the U.S. more times than Trump has changed wives. I am sticking to my prediction of a narrow Hillary win, I expect Trump to do better than expected in the debates.
Trump could do well in the debates but it could also damage him massively. If he goes on one of those tirades against Clinton that comes across as highly sexist then it could put off women voters. Though Trump seems to be doing badly with that demographic anyway, the danger is it could cause some republican female voters to stay at home not drive them to Clinton.
Put it this I think it's nailed on he says something highly controversial during at least one of the debates whether it will damage him fatally or not remains to be seen.
The debates are equally critical for Clinton. It seems almost impossible that she won't leave several open goals where Trump can paint her as an out of touch Washington insider, similar to Jeb!'s incredulity when Trump attacked the Iraq war.
It's looking like Blaine vs. Cleveland on speed. And it's probably going to be equally nasty and the outcome equally disastrous.
Those NEC results means Corbyn's going to win, and we're going to get deselections doesn't it?
Looks that way.
Yes, but it won't be consistent. Most MPs don't especially want a fight with their CLPs (let alone a formal split which would lose them their seats), and most CLP members (including many on the hard left) are inclined to shrug if the MP is not high-profile hostile like Danczuk.The impression that there is nothing but two factions who hate each other is mistaken. But members were keen to avoid perpetuating the fragile balance on the NEC, and I know a number of people who used to distribute their votes between the groups but this time went for the solid left slate.
On the subject of flying, I read this morning that Qantas is thinking of introducing a London-Perth non-stop service using the new 787. It would take somewhere between 17 and 18 hours.
Are there enough people who would want to be stuck in a small metal tube for that length of time, and pay for the privilege? I'd be going off my rocker, especially with all these new booze restrictions that people are talking about. And what about the crew? OK, they will be Australians, but even so it would hardly be fair on them.
The Airbus A350 is capable of Sydney to London non stop for most of the year.
Sometimes you have to stop and think whether you should do something rather than whether you could do something. A non-stop flight to Sydney would be 22 hours. I don't know about you but that is my idea of hell, club class or not.
And no-one in their right mind would want to do that in coach!
As an aside, have you been on the BA001 LCY>SNN>JFK? That's supposed to be very good, some great outside-the-box thinking from BA.
I haven't done it for a few years but fidnt like the seat config on BA001. Wasn't private enough to read confidential materials
This debate over grammar schools...I doubt the solution found to work with KIPPS will be very popular.
Which is effectively set up free schools for the poor, select by "motivation / potential" (not current test scores) then make them do more tuition, shorter holidays & generally worked a lot harder.
Those NEC results means Corbyn's going to win, and we're going to get deselections doesn't it?
Looks that way.
Yes, but it won't be consistent. Most MPs don't especially want a fight with their CLPs (let alone a formal split which would lose them their seats), and most CLP members (including many on the hard left) are inclined to shrug if the MP is not high-profile hostile like Danczuk.The impression that there is nothing but two factions who hate each other is mistaken. But members were keen to avoid perpetuating the fragile balance on the NEC, and I know a number of people who used to distribute their votes between the groups but this time went for the solid left slate.
Instead of two factions it seems to be more like: one faction. Versus about 170 MPs with no little batallions.
The gap is still widening day after day, the only change is that since Wednesday it grows at a smaller rate.
Looks like a repeat of 1996, so far, in both the vote share and the number of Electoral Votes (my estimate is Hillary 364 Trump 174).
But things are still getting worse everyday for Trump, I won't be surprised to see a 1964 style victory for Hillary by election day.
You have changed prediction on the general election in the U.S. more times than Trump has changed wives. I am sticking to my prediction of a narrow Hillary win, I expect Trump to do better than expected in the debates.
Trump could do well in the debates but it could also damage him massively. If he goes on one of those tirades against Clinton that comes across as highly sexist then it could put off women voters. Though Trump seems to be doing badly with that demographic anyway, the danger is it could cause some republican female voters to stay at home not drive them to Clinton.
Put it this I think it's nailed on he says something highly controversial during at least one of the debates whether it will damage him fatally or not remains to be seen.
The debates are equally critical for Clinton. It seems almost impossible that she won't leave several open goals where Trump can paint her as an out of touch Washington insider, similar to Jeb!'s incredulity when Trump attacked the Iraq war.
Indeed, Trump will be looking to do exactly that and for his 'are you better off and safer today than you were 4 years ago' and 'there you go again' etc
Notice too this phrase 'Reagan’s post-convention bounce foreshadowed his eventual finish, as he seized nearly 50 percent of the vote compared with his final tally of 51 percent, and above the 46 percent threshold for victory in a year when John Anderson would take more than 8 percent of the vote. In every post-war election involving an incumbent, the winning challenger has seized a majority of voters after his convention.'
Trump of course had a clear lead after his convention
That's a good question and explains why some Tories and many Lib Dems are rooting for Owen Smith. Corbyn will not give May an easy pass if she starts to backslide on the referendum result.
Ann Black 100,999 Christine Shawcroft 97,510 Claudia Webbe 92,377 Darren Williams 87,003 Rhea Wolfson 85,687 Peter Willsman 82,863
Ellie Reeves 72,514 Eddie Izzard 70,993 Bex Bailey 67,205 Johanna Baxter 60,367 Parmjit Dhanda 53,838 Luke Akehurst 48,632 John Gallagher 22,678 Amanat Gul 14,693
Grassroots Alliance takes all seats. +2 compared to 2014. Reeves and Baxter voted out.
The Grassroot Alliance polled a total of circa 544000 with other candidates receiving circa 511000.. Assuming that members had six votes that implies that just under 91000 supported Corbynite candidates compared with just over 85000 for others. In itself that is not such a huge margin and I would anticipate a higher level of participation for the Leadership Election. I am unsure as to who would benefit from that.
That's a good question and explains why some Tories and many Lib Dems are rooting for Owen Smith. Corbyn will not give May an easy pass if she starts to backslide on the referendum result.
That does rather imply he is capable of causing May difficulties in any way.
It is not impossible but it would be a dramatic break with his dismal performance in the last eleven months.
@DPJHodges: Someone who has served on Labour's NEC for a decade has been kicked off by a man who has never voted Labour in a single general election.
@JeremyCliffe: The question isn't whether the Tories under Theresa May will win the next election. It's whether their majority will be nearer 100 or 150.
Comments
Clinton 50.4 .. Trump 43.1
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/08/UPICVoter-daily-poll-Clinton-maintains-7-point-lead-over-Trump/1381470658124/?spt=sec&or=tn
If you want to hurt Trump, let him speak.
Clinton 44 .. Trump 37
http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Georgia-Executive-Summary.pdf
Will leave the laying of the 79-1's alone for a while anyway. Sorry to poop on the party if it's one of you.
Clinton 46 .. Trump 37
https://mgtvwhtm.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/toplines-statewideabc27-aug16.pdf
Aren't they unleadable by someone of his views?
Imagine Ken Clarke leading the present set of Tory MPs.
The set up just isn't sustainable.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-of-polls/index.html
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/762696218820608000
Monmouth National
Clinton 46
Trump 34
Johnson 7
Stein2
This is looking brutal for Trump.
Clinton 46 .. Trump 34 - RV
Clinton 50 .. Trump 37 - LV
http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_080816/
https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/UK Politics
Put it this I think it's nailed on he says something highly controversial during at least one of the debates whether it will damage him fatally or not remains to be seen.
Got to say I was really rather surprised. He also said he saw her as totally different to Thatcher.
http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/national-executive-committee-elections-2016
Ann Black 100,999
Christine Shawcroft 97,510
Claudia Webbe 92,377
Darren Williams 87,003
Rhea Wolfson 85,687
Peter Willsman 82,863
Ellie Reeves 72,514
Eddie Izzard 70,993
Bex Bailey 67,205
Johanna Baxter 60,367
Parmjit Dhanda 53,838
Luke Akehurst 48,632
John Gallagher 22,678
Amanat Gul 14,693
Grassroots Alliance takes all seats. +2 compared to 2014. Reeves and Baxter voted out.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/762697512901804032
I'm thinking an attempted coup is about the only one left. On current form, Macdonnell is probably talking to the CIGS about it right now.
Shawcroft is Labour Briefing/Labour Representation Committee
Webbe is a Islington Cllr
Williams is from Welsh Grassroots Alliance
Wolfson is Momentum
Willsman is from Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, former Bennite organizer from the 80's London political scene.
It said the success criteria were also vague – families could be deemed “turned around” even while the children were still persistently truant or committing crime, just so long as they did so less frequently than they had done before.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/08/13bn-troubled-families-scheme-has-had-no-discernible-impact
So Johnny how many cars have you nicked this month, ohhh I think about 10, was f##king cold out, so I stayed in and played on my half inched PS4....So less than last month...its a success....
Clinton 83.0 .. Trump 16.9 - Polls Only
Clinton 75.8 .. Trump 24.2 - Polls Plus
Clinton 90.8 .. Trump 9.2 - Nowcast
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
As for Eddie Izzard...
"The fact that the high court had to rule on a Labour matter shows how much trouble the party is in"
Quite
#utterlyfecked
Here's an article by Nate Cohn, entitled "Exploding the Reagan 1980 Comeback Myth". The graph shows that Reagan held a commanding lead in July, and on the whole a narrow lead after the Democratic convention in early August:
https://newrepublic.com/article/107171/exploding-the-reagan-1980-comeback-myth
Well done JohnM.....Another PB meme is born
"Throwing a Meeks"
Even though there must have been some trying to look to get Corbyn, they would surely be outnumbered by those like that really strange woman the BBC have just interviewed who seems to genuinely think Corbyn will win and deliver Socialism. So it would be most unlikely to change the results.
Quite who is which, I'll leave up to you.
Which is effectively set up free schools for the poor, select by "motivation / potential" (not current test scores) then make them do more tuition, shorter holidays & generally worked a lot harder.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/Presidential-Debates-Rarely-GameChangers.aspx
Carter got a 10% convention bounce in 1980, Reagan an 8% bounce
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157406/obama-gets-three-point-convention-bounce.aspx
Trump of course had a clear lead after his convention
It is not impossible but it would be a dramatic break with his dismal performance in the last eleven months.
@JeremyCliffe: The question isn't whether the Tories under Theresa May will win the next election. It's whether their majority will be nearer 100 or 150.
The tone on Twitter this evening is funereal...