politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ex-LAB MP and PB regular, Nick Palmer, on why a party split won’t work
It’s pretty clear that Corbyn has won the re-run, and talk of trying once more next year has faded amid eye-rolling on all sides at the thought of doing it all over again. Instead, the hard-core anti-Corbyn wing has started to talk about a split.
The section on reselections is, I feel, too sanguine. It presupposes rational behaviour by Corbynistas. A brief sojourn on Twitter should be enough to disabuse any such notion.
Cults beget pogroms. Expect a witch hunt at a CLP near you in 2017.
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Brexit means Osborne's rather movable feast of a budget surplus will be deferred for at least two years. This is being interpreted as the death of austerity.
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Brexit means Osborne's rather movable feast of a budget surplus will be deferred for at least two years. This is being interpreted as the death of austerity.
Of course it just means that the current level of austerity won't close the deficit gap at the same pace as before.
O/T Is it too soon to suggest Team GB are showing signs of being a bit 'spursy'....
We won the cricket. Rejoice.
Yup - looking forward to listening to the final day now I'm home.... just need to put up with Ed Smith - good evening david, good evening everyone back home - and the reserves TMS team.
Also, Corbyn still does not have a guaranteed NEC majority. That means changes to selection/deselection rules are not guaranteed. But even if they were the one year rule means conference could not vote on them until 2018.
Also worth noting that If it ends up 60/40, that means there are around 150,000-200,000 anti-Corbyn members. As a standalone party that would have second biggest membership in the UK.
Its notable that one of the six Corbyn supporters elected to The Labour NEC yesterday, Rhea Wolfson said today that The Party "needs to talk about" Compulsory Reselection. Its been estimated that The New Labour NEC, when it takes over in October will have 17 Corbyn supporters, 10 "floating voters" & just 5 Centrists. Currently CLP nominations, usually a reliable guide to opinion among the members, break about 4 to 1 in favour of Corbyn. To recap, Labour Centrists have 80% of The PLP, perhaps 20% of the membership, 5 of the 23 members of the ruling NEC & The Deputy Leader. The new, Revolutionary Left have the Leader, the NEC majority & most of the members. The only alternative to a Split is endless civil war. Of course most of The MPs dont want a split, their problem is that the other side do.
This all makes a lot of sense to me. It's too hard and, even now, risky to split en masse when, in profession at least, most MPs are not saying they disagree with the aims of Corbyn and company. Every opportunity for action short of a split will be seized, even if it looks silly, particularly since the temptation to hope for better will be so high, even if it looks improbable. If there is even a handful of defections outside the Lords I'll be stunned.
Is Nick Palmer the only person alive who was a staunch Blairite, voted for the Iraq War and is now a staunch Corbynite determined to carry the flame of revolution aloft? At least you can say Nick is loyal I suppose
O/T Is it too soon to suggest Team GB are showing signs of being a bit 'spursy'....
Aren't we currently ahead of our London tally?
We've nearly managed more 4th place finishes by now than we did in the whole of 2012... there's some spectacular bottling / lack of composure going on in so many events I've been watching whilst away for a long weekend break.
Is Nick Palmer the only person alive who was a staunch Blairite, voted for the Iraq War and is now a staunch Corbynite determined to carry the flame of revolution aloft? At least you can say Nick is loyal I suppose
Many of Labours current members seem to think they might as well stick with Corbyn as they will lose the next election anyway, but there is a big difference between losing a few seats and losing in a land slide loss to the Tories. A landslide loss will take at least another two elections to recover from but since they want to win with purity or not at all they are doomed to repeat history.
Out of interest, Labour are within a good chance of winning big in the 2018 London local elections as it will be eight years into a Tory government, do Labour members think many of the Cllr candidates could come from the momentum wing of the party?
Is Nick Palmer the only person alive who was a staunch Blairite, voted for the Iraq War and is now a staunch Corbynite determined to carry the flame of revolution aloft? At least you can say Nick is loyal I suppose
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Is Nick Palmer the only person alive who was a staunch Blairite, voted for the Iraq War and is now a staunch Corbynite determined to carry the flame of revolution aloft? At least you can say Nick is loyal I suppose
There's also Andy Burnham.
Yes, Burnham too may be the the other though that was mainly for career reasons, as the news today showed, whether Nick P runs again in Broxtowe in 2020 remains to be seen
Is Nick Palmer the only person alive who was a staunch Blairite, voted for the Iraq War and is now a staunch Corbynite determined to carry the flame of revolution aloft? At least you can say Nick is loyal I suppose
It's the Olympic spirit.
Certainly need an Olympic sized amount of self-belief to stick with Corbyn at the moment
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Too early to say until the autumn statement what government policy is regarding austerity?
Trump: "Hillary likes invading foreign countries. We're sending equipment over and it's being stolen by the enemy. We sent 2,300 Humvees and the enemy took them. We back allies who are worse than the guys we're trying to get rid of."
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Massive cuts should have been applied in the first year of the coalition when most people would have accepted they were necessary.
It would have meant a bigger recesssion but once done you can look forward with no deficit and build for the future.
Instead the coalition chickened out and froze spending rather than cutting it. Hence the massive increase in government debt which one day will have to be re-financed when interest rates are a lot higher than today - and we still have an unsustainable annual deficit adding to the debt each year.
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Too early to say until the autumn statement what government policy is regarding austerity?
Reading the mood music, admittedly. But they couldn't rely on their MPs for a majority to push through difficult decisions a year ago, the idea they will be more willing to do so now, with potential Brexit pangs to deal with as well, seems improbable to me.
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Too early to say until the autumn statement what government policy is regarding austerity?
Reading the mood music, admittedly. But they couldn't rely on their MPs for a majority to push through difficult decisions a year ago, the idea they will be more willing to do so now, with potential Brexit pangs to deal with as well, seems improbable to me.
Quite. Osborne was already running out of road on the supply side. I know everyone's having hysterics about the latest figures, but have a look at the services PMI trend since late 2013. Notice anything?
Presumably (a) Core group wobbly will be cowed by the result and (b) 30-50 current Labour MPs will step down next time and be replaced mostly by pro-Corbyn candidates, of whom 20-40 will win. So that gives about 80-100 MPs who will be loyal to a Corbyn-type manifesto next time round, assuming about 50 seat losses.
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Massive cuts should have been applied in the first year of the coalition when most people would have accepted they were necessary.
It would have meant a bigger recesssion but once done you can look forward with no deficit and build for the future.
Instead the coalition chickened out and froze spending rather than cutting it. Hence the massive increase in government debt which one day will have to be re-financed when interest rates are a lot higher than today - and we still have an unsustainable annual deficit adding to the debt each year.
All of that made sense in the world where governments did not just print the money they need. Nearly a third of our debt is held by the BoE who basically don't get the interest that would be payable if it was in third party hands. At the moment we still pretend that this is going to be paid back one day but that is not true.
The scary thing is that the price for this has been minimal. It is inconceivable that politicians will not return to the same well.
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Massive cuts should have been applied in the first year of the coalition when most people would have accepted they were necessary.
It would have meant a bigger recesssion but once done you can look forward with no deficit and build for the future.
Instead the coalition chickened out and froze spending rather than cutting it. Hence the massive increase in government debt which one day will have to be re-financed when interest rates are a lot higher than today - and we still have an unsustainable annual deficit adding to the debt each year.
All of that made sense in the world where governments did not just print the money they need. Nearly a third of our debt is held by the BoE who basically don't get the interest that would be payable if it was in third party hands. At the moment we still pretend that this is going to be paid back one day but that is not true.
The scary thing is that the price for this has been minimal. It is inconceivable that politicians will not return to the same well.
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Massive cuts should have been applied in the first year of the coalition when most people would have accepted they were necessary.
It would have meant a bigger recesssion but once done you can look forward with no deficit and build for the future.
Instead the coalition chickened out and froze spending rather than cutting it. Hence the massive increase in government debt which one day will have to be re-financed when interest rates are a lot higher than today - and we still have an unsustainable annual deficit adding to the debt each year.
All of that made sense in the world where governments did not just print the money they need. Nearly a third of our debt is held by the BoE who basically don't get the interest that would be payable if it was in third party hands. At the moment we still pretend that this is going to be paid back one day but that is not true.
The scary thing is that the price for this has been minimal. It is inconceivable that politicians will not return to the same well.
Nick, you obviously know better than most on PB what is going on within the Labour party. However, from outside it looks like there is a struggle for control going on within Labour and the 'moderate' majority of MPs are losing. They have strenuously tried and failed to get rid of Corbyn and only ended up strengthening him. For these MPs to now just sit quietly and hope that they aren't deselected strikes me as rather optimistic. The new constituency boundaries will give cover to the left to get their own people selected. The moderate majority of Labour MPs will have to go out with a bang, trying to keep their vision of Labour alive, or a whimper being picked off one by one and letting the Labour party become a creature of the left. Incidentally probably keeping the Tories in power for decades.
Another poll that shows Trump has taken a big hit in Pennsylvania, but not in Florida. Ohio is somewhat in between.
But Trump needs all 3.
There is a Marist poll for NBC/WSJ coming up in 90 minutes for Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But Marist is on my black list of pollsters (along with Fox, Rasmussen and Reuters) due to methodology problems so I won't be using them, I fully expect them to show Hillary up by 10-20 everywhere.
Good piece, Nick. Labour are going to have to treat this as their IDS moment and hunker down for a few years. Where Labour are in a slightly better position than the Tories under IDS is that there are no Lib Dems now, whom the Tories were in real danger of falling into third place behind. Moreover, the May/Brexit honeymoon won't last for ever. I suspect it will end suddenly and bloodily. When it does, Labour might just have credibility and political good fortune thrust upon them.
Anyone angry about our lack of sporting prowess can reflect it could be worse. We could all support the Indian Cricket Team. Then we would be having endless discussions about how we have just five specialist batsmen in our Test side, including having dropped a man who averages around 50 for a man who averages less than two of our specialist bowlers, and how West Indies are throttling us to pieces by the obscene and indecent tactic of bowling lots of good balls on a length.
I have often wondered what people see in Rohit Sharma, particularly when compared to Cheteshwar Pujara (see here for a gloriously sarcastic take on this tendency). Virat Kohli says 'he can change a game in a session.' It doesn't usually take him that long though - fifty balls appears to be about the average before he finds an inventive way to lose his wicket, including on this occasion lunging for a ball so wide it might have been fielded by first slip a la Flintoff and Harmison.
And to think they want to be No. 1 in the world...
Another poll that shows Trump has taken a big hit in Pennsylvania, but not in Florida. Ohio is somewhat in between.
But Trump needs all 3.
There is a Marist poll for NBC/WSJ coming up in 90 minutes for Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But Marist is on my black list of pollsters (along with Fox, Rasmussen and Reuters) due to methodology problems so I won't be using them, I fully expect them to show Hillary up by 10-20 everywhere.
These Quinnipiac polls all show a move to Clinton. Last month OH was tied, FL was Trump +3 and PA Trump +2. That said Q have move from RV to LV.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
I've studied it, basically everytime we are approaching a full moon Trump's numbers go up, and then afterwards they go down again.
Trump has to understand that everyone who confronts him is a Hillary plant designed to bait him into a public spat. He has to ignore them and not take the bait.
Hillary has a giant campaign, even if she doesn't make mistakes someone on her campaign will, like today with the father of the terrorist in Florida.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
A quick way of winding up a lefty is to say that there is no evidence that Donald Trump would be worse then Hilary Clinton. Incidentally, that is true. Trump would probably do very little if he actually got into office, because he would have no clue how to get anything done. Hilary would undoubtedly try to do lots of things and make a hopeless mess of all of them.
Unfortunately he sometimes makes it difficult to carry conviction. It is genuinely stupefying how shockingly poor the standard of this election is. Bush vs. Gore was Lincoln vs. Douglas by comparison.
Another poll that shows Trump has taken a big hit in Pennsylvania, but not in Florida. Ohio is somewhat in between.
But Trump needs all 3.
There is a Marist poll for NBC/WSJ coming up in 90 minutes for Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But Marist is on my black list of pollsters (along with Fox, Rasmussen and Reuters) due to methodology problems so I won't be using them, I fully expect them to show Hillary up by 10-20 everywhere.
These Quinnipiac polls all show a move to Clinton. Last month OH was tied, FL was Trump +3 and PA Trump +2. That said Q have move from RV to LV.
They are showing the same pattern as all the other polls, some states like Pennsylvania have shifted by 15 points to Hillary, others like Florida by 5 or less.
The flaw in NPXMP's argument is that he presumes Labour won't die out altogether, as a mainstream party, if led by an insane Hamas-loving, IRA-hugging Marxist for the next five years.
At the moment Labour are very very lucky that UKIP seem incapable of scoring the open goal, and replacing them in the north and Wales. But what if UKIP get their act together?
Labour have already died in Scotland: gone from hegemony to third place in two elections. This could easily happen in England and Wales, too.
That is the existential question Labour MPs must confront. This isn't normal binary British politics, not any more. There is no guarantee the pendulum will keep swinging.
That's the risk. To most voters, Corbyn's Labour Party is simply horrible.
Just had a letter from the Gen Sec of the union I joined at Easter.
Due to the Labour Party losing that court case I will likely now get a vote in the leadership election.
The thing is that I can't abide Smith, so it looks like I'm going to have to vote Corbyn.
I'm not sure allowing tory/ukip supporters who, after too much beer veer somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan, vote for the Labour Leader just because they join a Trade Union (and forgot to opt out of the political fund) is really altogether a very good idea.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
Maybe but the problem is if Trump becomes Romney 2 he loses much of his appeal to his core support
Out of interest, where has the idea that "anti-austerity policies have won the argument" actually come from?
Because the government was abandoning it even pre-Brexit as they were easily going to miss their deficit target and clearly no longer had the power to get their backbenchers to force through difficult choices.
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
Well, yes. Ish.
The comment about Brexit meaning it'll have to be bailed also doesn't mean any argument got won.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
Depends which national polls, Reuters and LAT have it close but it does suggest Trump has a good chance of winning Florida and Ohio but Hillary's stranglehold over Pennsylvania + Virginia + Colorado + 1 of Iowa, NH and Nevada should keep win her the election but it will be close
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
Maybe but the problem is if Trump becomes Romney 2 he loses much of his appeal to his core support
His policies don't need to become Romney 2. He just has to stop taking the bait and stop answering provocateurs.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
A quick way of winding up a lefty is to say that there is no evidence that Donald Trump would be worse then Hilary Clinton. Incidentally, that is true. Trump would probably do very little if he actually got into office, because he would have no clue how to get anything done. Hilary would undoubtedly try to do lots of things and make a hopeless mess of all of them.
Unfortunately he sometimes makes it difficult to carry conviction. It is genuinely stupefying how shockingly poor the standard of this election is. Bush vs. Gore was Lincoln vs. Douglas by comparison.
Its almost as if letting people vote for their representstives, say a group of 600 or so people, who know each other and each others strengths and weaknesses to a degree and letting them choose the leader is a good idea?
Good piece, Nick. Labour are going to have to treat this as their IDS moment and hunker down for a few years. Where Labour are in a slightly better position than the Tories under IDS is that there are no Lib Dems now, whom the Tories were in real danger of falling into third place behind. Moreover, the May/Brexit honeymoon won't last for ever. I suspect it will end suddenly and bloodily. When it does, Labour might just have credibility and political good fortune thrust upon them.
Not while Corbyn is within a million miles of the leadership, they may not have the LDs behind them but they do have UKIP and UKIP pose more of a threat to Labour's white working class vote than the anti war, leftwing Charles Kennedy LDs did to the Tory vote under IDS in the Home Counties
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
Depends which national polls, Reuters and LAT have it close but it does suggest Trump has a good chance of winning Florida and Ohio but Hillary's stranglehold over Pennsylvania + Virginia + Colorado + 1 of Iowa, NH and Nevada should keep win her the election but it will be close
Trump has to find out why is he down so much in Pennsylvania and Georgia, what group is behind most of the movement there.
My guess is college educated women in Philadelphia and african americans in Atlanta.
It is strange how many people regard the Labour party as somehow their affair even when they are not in it. I comment about it, I might have advice from an outsider's perspective, but I don't act like it is my party to comment or get angry about it.
It is strange how many people regard the Labour party as somehow their affair even when they are not in it. I comment about it, I might have advice from an outsider's perspective, but I don't act like it is my party to comment or get angry about it.
Probably because most of the socialist party members are in trade unions so get a vote
NP - "It’s not as though most MPs vehemently disagree with the Corbyn project"
This isn't true.
Corbyn is an idiot, and he has no project.
Corbyn definitely has a project: the takeover of the Labour Party. His acolytes are committed to the same cause, with even greater fervour.
He doesn't have a project in any other sense (I suspect he is a bit too stupid to have any original economic ideas). But he is pretty good at this one cause, at this low and cunning party politics - as he should be, after 30 years of rallies and committees.
Moreover this calculating internecine stuff enthuses him, because he sees party politics as essentially a moral exercise, a place where he - happily - gets to show how morally superior he is to others, and he can purge those who oppose. It must be thrilling for him to have the whip hand, after decades when he was treated as a joke.
No way is he giving this up. He's got the wheel of the bus, at last.
You "suspect"?
If Corbyn has an original idea I'll eat my hat. If he has an original economic idea then hat factories of the world will need to go to full production for many centuries.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
A quick way of winding up a lefty is to say that there is no evidence that Donald Trump would be worse then Hilary Clinton. Incidentally, that is true. Trump would probably do very little if he actually got into office, because he would have no clue how to get anything done. Hilary would undoubtedly try to do lots of things and make a hopeless mess of all of them.
Unfortunately he sometimes makes it difficult to carry conviction. It is genuinely stupefying how shockingly poor the standard of this election is. Bush vs. Gore was Lincoln vs. Douglas by comparison.
Its almost as if letting people vote for their representstives, say a group of 600 or so people, who know each other and each others strengths and weaknesses to a degree and letting them choose the leader is a good idea?
Ah, if only we had that system, think how much happier we would be. No sad disasters like Jeremy Corbyn, Ian Duncan Smith, Michael Foot, Alec Douglas-Ho...
Oh, hang on a minute.
EDIT - in fairness, of course, only one of them was PM and the others had about the same chance of becoming PM as I have of a threesome involving Caroline Wozniacki.
I think it's over now. This was the one place he hadn't yet gone and it will dominate the news for weeks now. There is a small minority of unbalanced, angry people in the US but nowhere near enough to elect one of their own.
He didn't make it clear whether he wanted liberal high court judges or Clinton shot, I suppose that was his attempt at wriggle room.
Just had a letter from the Gen Sec of the union I joined at Easter.
Due to the Labour Party losing that court case I will likely now get a vote in the leadership election.
The thing is that I can't abide Smith, so it looks like I'm going to have to vote Corbyn.
I'm not sure allowing tory/ukip supporters who, after too much beer veer somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan, vote for the Labour Leader just because they join a Trade Union (and forgot to opt out of the political fund) is really altogether a very good idea.
My mum is in the GMB (teaching assistant) and will likely get a vote as well, I think she's going to vote for Smith because Corbyn is scruffy whenever he's on TV.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
A quick way of winding up a lefty is to say that there is no evidence that Donald Trump would be worse then Hilary Clinton. Incidentally, that is true. Trump would probably do very little if he actually got into office, because he would have no clue how to get anything done. Hilary would undoubtedly try to do lots of things and make a hopeless mess of all of them.
Unfortunately he sometimes makes it difficult to carry conviction. It is genuinely stupefying how shockingly poor the standard of this election is. Bush vs. Gore was Lincoln vs. Douglas by comparison.
Its almost as if letting people vote for their representstives, say a group of 600 or so people, who know each other and each others strengths and weaknesses to a degree and letting them choose the leader is a good idea?
Ah, if only we had that system, think how much happier we would be. No sad disasters like Jeremy Corbyn, Ian Duncan Smith, Michael Foot, Alec Douglas-Ho...
Oh, hang on a minute.
EDIT - in fairness, of course, only one of them was PM and the others had about the same chance of becoming PM as I have of a threesome involving Caroline Wozniacki.
Er. I was suggesting the MPs choose the leader. We would not have had any of that lot except possibly Home if that was the case.
Evening all. Thanks @NickPalmer for an insider's view of what, to an outsider, looks like absolute chaos. It would be interesting to know who are the heavyweight candidates waiting in the wings, as last year the three non-Corbyn candidates were all decidedly lightweight.
The flaw in NPXMP's argument is that he presumes Labour won't die out altogether, as a mainstream party, if led by an insane Hamas-loving, IRA-hugging Marxist for the next five years.
At the moment Labour are very very lucky that UKIP seem incapable of scoring the open goal, and replacing them in the north and Wales. But what if UKIP get their act together?
Labour have already died in Scotland: gone from hegemony to third place in two elections. This could easily happen in England and Wales, too.
That is the existential question Labour MPs must confront. This isn't normal binary British politics, not any more. There is no guarantee the pendulum will keep swinging.
That's the risk. To most voters, Corbyn's Labour Party is simply horrible.
Indeed. I find Corbyn - and even more, Corbynism - quite repulsive. I'd certainly vote UKIP before Corbyn. I'd likely vote Green or Lib Dem before Corbyn. I'd possibly vote Britain First before Corbyn, or flee the country.
In a PR system a Corbynite leftwing party would, I reckon, get about 10-20% of the vote. Respectable - a UKIP of the Left - but no more than that.
And that is the risk Labour face if they tolerate Corbyn. That voters take them at their word, accept they are a hard left party, and Labour subsequently slump to 10-20%, and never wield power ever again.
The problem for Labour is that the alternative to Corbyn, left wing but pro-EU under the Welsh Alan Partridge, is equally horrible.
It is strange how many people regard the Labour party as somehow their affair even when they are not in it. I comment about it, I might have advice from an outsider's perspective, but I don't act like it is my party to comment or get angry about it.
Probably because most of the socialist party members are in trade unions so get a vote
I suppose, but they act like they've always wanted the best for the party when the fact they're in another one suggests its a second choice at best.
Evening all. Thanks @NickPalmer for an insider's view of what, to an outsider, looks like absolute chaos. It would be interesting to know who are the heavyweight candidates waiting in the wings, as last year the three non-Corbyn candidates were all decidedly lightweight.
Heavyweight? At the moment a leader who was clinically sane and did not look like they were auditioning for a rerun of Worzel Gummidge would be a start
I think it's over now. This was the one place he hadn't yet gone and it will dominate the news for weeks now. There is a small minority of unbalanced, angry people in the US but nowhere near enough to elect one of their own.
he didn't make it clear whether he wanted liberal high court judges or Clinton shot, I suppose that was his attempt at wriggle room.
The problem is that he didn't go there, the statement quoted was of such generic substance that the title is misleading:
" "If she gets to pick her judges," Trump said, "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is." "
Over here Trump would have successfully sued TPM for libel.
I think it's over now. This was the one place he hadn't yet gone and it will dominate the news for weeks now. There is a small minority of unbalanced, angry people in the US but nowhere near enough to elect one of their own.
He didn't make it clear whether he wanted liberal high court judges or Clinton shot, I suppose that was his attempt at wriggle room.
He did not suggest that, he just suggested they used the 2nd amendment to defend their rights if necessary and most of his supporters are gun owners
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
Maybe but the problem is if Trump becomes Romney 2 he loses much of his appeal to his core support
His policies don't need to become Romney 2. He just has to stop taking the bait and stop answering provocateurs.
I think it's over now. This was the one place he hadn't yet gone and it will dominate the news for weeks now. There is a small minority of unbalanced, angry people in the US but nowhere near enough to elect one of their own.
he didn't make it clear whether he wanted liberal high court judges or Clinton shot, I suppose that was his attempt at wriggle room.
The problem is that he didn't go there, the statement quoted was of such generic substance that the title is misleading:
" "If she gets to pick her judges," Trump said, "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is." "
Not generic at all, Americans know exactly what he was referring to. He will try and say it was a joke but that is just as bad. You just don't do it;.
Er. I was suggesting the MPs choose the leader. We would not have had any of that lot except possibly Home if that was the case.
That's why I made the edit.
And of course, if it had been left to MPs in 1963 it would likely have been one of Butler, Maudling or Macleod, with Powell as a possible fourth candidate and Hailsham maybe in the mix. Home would certainly not have been considered despite being the Foreign Secretary.
In fairness, that is just about the only case I can think of where somebody who demonstrably did not command widespread support in the House of Commons became PM since 1906. Churchill in 1940 would have been the closest thing to another example, but with Chamberlain's backing he was safe enough. Macdonald and Lloyd George led only small groups of MPs, but the support of Bonar Law and Baldwin made that irrelevant.
Well, the MPs may or may not have the courage to split, and I suspect not considering the current voting system and how it penalises small parties, but I've been a loyal member and activist for over 20 years and I believe Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister.
Luckily for the country he has almost zero chance of becoming PM.
Unluckily for the Labour Party he has no chance of being removed before 2020 at the earliest. If there is an early election he and the far-left will claim the Kinnock precedent and say that he hasn't had a fair crack of the whip yet so should continue. He will demand to do so and his personality cult of Momentum will ensure it. Even after 2020 that may well happen.
There is a very real possibility of Corbyn destroying the Labour Party entirely. If he remains tin-eared to the concerns of the northern working class (and why shouldn't he as he is to everything else?) then Labour may be destroyed there as it has in Scotland. Wales is up for grabs too based on the Brexit result.
Corbyn represents a very narrow urban middle-class lefty world view that does well in London, Manchester, Brighton and Twitter. Nowhere else.
Considering all of the above, if there was a possibility of joining a centre-left, modern party I would do it in a heart-beat. The LibDems are a poisoned and decimated brand after naively cooperating with the Tories so they won't do, but if there was a genuine moderate left-wing alternative I would resign my membership and join it immediately.
There is no party for my moderate, sensible left-wing politics currently. I believe in a welfare safety-net worth its name, and that it is shameful that we have homelessness in one of the richest countries in the world. I want a cooperative attitude to Europe. I would also like far greater regulation of Corporate pay with a German model of Union representation on company boards. The Conservative Party doesn't care about poverty. It claims to, but actions speak far louder than words.
This country is crying out for an alternative to permanent right-wing politics. I only hope some of the Parliamentary Labour Party have the guts to try for it.
I doubt they will and the UK will suffer over the next 10-30 years because there is now no opposition.
I think it's over now. This was the one place he hadn't yet gone and it will dominate the news for weeks now. There is a small minority of unbalanced, angry people in the US but nowhere near enough to elect one of their own.
He didn't make it clear whether he wanted liberal high court judges or Clinton shot, I suppose that was his attempt at wriggle room.
He did not suggest that, he just suggested they used the 2nd amendment to defend their rights if necessary and most of his supporters are gun owners
I think he suggested to them that they should vote for him.
But it's just a generic quote, it works as a Rorschach test.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
Depends which national polls, Reuters and LAT have it close but it does suggest Trump has a good chance of winning Florida and Ohio but Hillary's stranglehold over Pennsylvania + Virginia + Colorado + 1 of Iowa, NH and Nevada should keep win her the election but it will be close
Trump has to find out why is he down so much in Pennsylvania and Georgia, what group is behind most of the movement there.
My guess is college educated women in Philadelphia and african americans in Atlanta.
Trump should win Georgia in the end, Pennsylvania leans Hillary but could yet be won if it tightens up nationally but it requires a huge white working class rustbelt turnout to counteract Philadelphia. Hmm now where have we seen that happen before?
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
Depends which national polls, Reuters and LAT have it close but it does suggest Trump has a good chance of winning Florida and Ohio but Hillary's stranglehold over Pennsylvania + Virginia + Colorado + 1 of Iowa, NH and Nevada should keep win her the election but it will be close
Trump has to find out why is he down so much in Pennsylvania and Georgia, what group is behind most of the movement there.
My guess is college educated women in Philadelphia and african americans in Atlanta.
Trump should win Georgia in the end, Pennsylvania leans Hillary but could yet be won if it tightens up nationally but it requires a huge white working class rustbelt turnout to counteract Philadelphia. Hmm now where have we seen that happen before?
True, but Trump would have to morph into Boris Johnson.
From an angry clown to a happy clown, as the media would put it.
I think it's over now. This was the one place he hadn't yet gone and it will dominate the news for weeks now. There is a small minority of unbalanced, angry people in the US but nowhere near enough to elect one of their own.
He didn't make it clear whether he wanted liberal high court judges or Clinton shot, I suppose that was his attempt at wriggle room.
He did not suggest that, he just suggested they used the 2nd amendment to defend their rights if necessary and most of his supporters are gun owners
I think he suggested to them that they should vote for him.
But it's just a generic quote, it works as a Rorschach test.
This race is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, basically tied in Ohio and Florida also very close in Nevada.
USA 2016 is the unelectable versus the unspeakable. Every time Trump does something utterly horrific I can imagine American voters sighing and thinking, OK, that;s that, I'll have to vote for... WAIT, HILLARY CLINTON??
*gag reflex*
And so they reluctantly edge back to Trump. Until he offends them again.
I reckon if Trump shut the F up and acted normal and sane and talked about the economy boringly and sensibly for the next six months, he'd probably win. But he is incapable of this.
Maybe but the problem is if Trump becomes Romney 2 he loses much of his appeal to his core support
His policies don't need to become Romney 2. He just has to stop taking the bait and stop answering provocateurs.
Well, the MPs may or may not have the courage to split, and I suspect not considering the current voting system and how it penalises small parties, but I've been a loyal member and activist for over 20 years and I believe Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister.
Luckily for the country he has almost zero chance of becoming PM.
Unluckily for the Labour Party he has no chance of being removed before 2020 at the earliest. If there is an early election he and the far-left will claim the Kinnock precedent and say that he hasn't had a fair crack of the whip yet so should continue. He will demand to do so and his personality cult of Momentum will ensure it. Even after 2020 that may well happen.
There is a very real possibility of Corbyn destroying the Labour Party entirely. If he remains tin-eared to the concerns of the northern working class (and why shouldn't he as he is to everything else?) then Labour may be destroyed there as it has in Scotland. Wales is up for grabs too based on the Brexit result.
Corbyn represents a very narrow urban middle-class lefty world view that does well in London, Manchester, Brighton and Twitter. Nowhere else.
Considering all of the above, if there was a possibility of joining a centre-left, modern party I would do it in a heart-beat. The LibDems are a poisoned and decimated brand after naively cooperating with the Tories so they won't do, but if there was a genuine moderate left-wing alternative I would resign my membership and join it immediately.
There is no party for my moderate, sensible left-wing politics currently. I believe in a welfare safety-net worth its name, and that it is shameful that we have homelessness in one of the richest countries in the world. I want a cooperative attitude to Europe. I would also like far greater regulation of Corporate pay with a German model of Union representation on company boards. The Conservative Party doesn't care about poverty. It claims to, but actions speak far louder than words.
This country is crying out for an alternative to permanent right-wing politics. I only hope some of the Parliamentary Labour Party have the guts to try for it.
I doubt they will and the UK will suffer over the next 10-30 years because there is now no opposition.
Well, the MPs may or may not have the courage to split, and I suspect not considering the current voting system and how it penalises small parties, but I've been a loyal member and activist for over 20 years and I believe Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister.
Considering all of the above, if there was a possibility of joining a centre-left, modern party I would do it in a heart-beat. The LibDems are a poisoned and decimated brand after naively cooperating with the Tories so they won't do, but if there was a genuine moderate left-wing alternative I would resign my membership and join it immediately.
There is no party for my moderate, sensible left-wing politics currently. I believe in a welfare safety-net worth its name, and that it is shameful that we have homelessness in one of the richest countries in the world. I want a cooperative attitude to Europe. I would also like far greater regulation of Corporate pay with a German model of Union representation on company boards. The Conservative Party doesn't care about poverty. It claims to, but actions speak far louder than words.
This country is crying out for an alternative to permanent right-wing politics. I only hope some of the Parliamentary Labour Party have the guts to try for it.
I doubt they will and the UK will suffer over the next 10-30 years because there is now no opposition.
Yes! Completely and utterly. Particularly this:
"Corbyn represents a very narrow urban middle-class lefty world view that does well in London, Manchester, Brighton and Twitter. Nowhere else."
Unfortunately, too many are lost in the echo chamber of social media where they are just talking to one another, rather than swing voters. Should they encounter a swing voter, who expresses any doubts about Corbyn's suitability as a potential PM, they seem to be telling them to 'vote Tory' as a tactic.
NPXMP would do well to look far more closely at what has happened to Labour here in Scotland. They have no divine right to exist as one of the two main parties, and if voters decide they're out of touch, extinction or irrelevance is a real possibility.
Comments
And first - Unlike Owen Who...
Thanks Dr Nick.
'What did you do during the war, Daddy?'
'I sat on the backbenches sulking'
Hardly inspiring
Cults beget pogroms. Expect a witch hunt at a CLP near you in 2017.
Ho, ho, ho!
who's the reddest of them all ?
We'll never split
because we're frit
Also, Corbyn still does not have a guaranteed NEC majority. That means changes to selection/deselection rules are not guaranteed. But even if they were the one year rule means conference could not vote on them until 2018.
Also worth noting that If it ends up 60/40, that means there are around 150,000-200,000 anti-Corbyn members. As a standalone party that would have second biggest membership in the UK.
To recap, Labour Centrists have 80% of The PLP, perhaps 20% of the membership, 5 of the 23 members of the ruling NEC & The Deputy Leader. The new, Revolutionary Left have the Leader, the NEC majority & most of the members. The only alternative to a Split is endless civil war.
Of course most of The MPs dont want a split, their problem is that the other side do.
Out of interest, Labour are within a good chance of winning big in the 2018 London local elections as it will be eight years into a Tory government, do Labour members think many of the Cllr candidates could come from the momentum wing of the party?
I wouldn't quite put it as anti-austerity politics have won the argument' though. Austerity arguments won, but the will has run dry after six years, among public and politicians. It was still seen as necessary, I would guess, so anti-austerity has not won as that would imply people thought it a mistake, but it is the default position now that it is clear austerity will be dropped.
It would have meant a bigger recesssion but once done you can look forward with no deficit and build for the future.
Instead the coalition chickened out and froze spending rather than cutting it. Hence the massive increase in government debt which one day will have to be re-financed when interest rates are a lot higher than today - and we still have an unsustainable annual deficit adding to the debt each year.
PA - Clinton 52 .. Trump 42
OH - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/081016_SWING_PRES_+_BP.pdf
I admit that's a stretch though.
The scary thing is that the price for this has been minimal. It is inconceivable that politicians will not return to the same well.
They have strenuously tried and failed to get rid of Corbyn and only ended up strengthening him. For these MPs to now just sit quietly and hope that they aren't deselected strikes me as rather optimistic. The new constituency boundaries will give cover to the left to get their own people selected.
The moderate majority of Labour MPs will have to go out with a bang, trying to keep their vision of Labour alive, or a whimper being picked off one by one and letting the Labour party become a creature of the left. Incidentally probably keeping the Tories in power for decades.
Ohio is somewhat in between.
But Trump needs all 3.
There is a Marist poll for NBC/WSJ coming up in 90 minutes for Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
But Marist is on my black list of pollsters (along with Fox, Rasmussen and Reuters) due to methodology problems so I won't be using them, I fully expect them to show Hillary up by 10-20 everywhere.
I have often wondered what people see in Rohit Sharma, particularly when compared to Cheteshwar Pujara (see here for a gloriously sarcastic take on this tendency). Virat Kohli says 'he can change a game in a session.' It doesn't usually take him that long though - fifty balls appears to be about the average before he finds an inventive way to lose his wicket, including on this occasion lunging for a ball so wide it might have been fielded by first slip a la Flintoff and Harmison.
And to think they want to be No. 1 in the world...
Trump has to understand that everyone who confronts him is a Hillary plant designed to bait him into a public spat.
He has to ignore them and not take the bait.
Hillary has a giant campaign, even if she doesn't make mistakes someone on her campaign will, like today with the father of the terrorist in Florida.
Unfortunately he sometimes makes it difficult to carry conviction. It is genuinely stupefying how shockingly poor the standard of this election is. Bush vs. Gore was Lincoln vs. Douglas by comparison.
This isn't true.
Corbyn is an idiot, and he has no project.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-executed-clinton-short-circuited
The only thing is this:
" "If she gets to pick her judges," Trump said, "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is." "
Were is the suggestion of assassination ?
That is the most generic statement you could possibly make.
Just had a letter from the Gen Sec of the union I joined at Easter.
Due to the Labour Party losing that court case I will likely now get a vote in the leadership election.
The thing is that I can't abide Smith, so it looks like I'm going to have to vote Corbyn.
I'm not sure allowing tory/ukip supporters who, after too much beer veer somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan, vote for the Labour Leader just because they join a Trade Union (and forgot to opt out of the political fund) is really altogether a very good idea.
@LadPolitics: Some people have been backing @RichardBurgon at 100/1 to be next Labour leader. Now 50/1.
https://t.co/nF1Ld9LOFV https://t.co/yVl7wY5igd
That's something the second amendment people can do.
The comment about Brexit meaning it'll have to be bailed also doesn't mean any argument got won.
He just has to stop taking the bait and stop answering provocateurs.
My guess is college educated women in Philadelphia and african americans in Atlanta.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/watch-as-ed-miliband-backs-owen-smith-in-video-appeal-to-labour-members_uk_57a9e193e4b089961b8599c6
If Corbyn has an original idea I'll eat my hat. If he has an original economic idea then hat factories of the world will need to go to full production for many centuries.
Oh, hang on a minute.
EDIT - in fairness, of course, only one of them was PM and the others had about the same chance of becoming PM as I have of a threesome involving Caroline Wozniacki.
He didn't make it clear whether he wanted liberal high court judges or Clinton shot, I suppose that was his attempt at wriggle room.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-britain-idUSKCN10K285?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)
" "If she gets to pick her judges," Trump said, "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is." "
Over here Trump would have successfully sued TPM for libel.
And of course, if it had been left to MPs in 1963 it would likely have been one of Butler, Maudling or Macleod, with Powell as a possible fourth candidate and Hailsham maybe in the mix. Home would certainly not have been considered despite being the Foreign Secretary.
In fairness, that is just about the only case I can think of where somebody who demonstrably did not command widespread support in the House of Commons became PM since 1906. Churchill in 1940 would have been the closest thing to another example, but with Chamberlain's backing he was safe enough. Macdonald and Lloyd George led only small groups of MPs, but the support of Bonar Law and Baldwin made that irrelevant.
Luckily for the country he has almost zero chance of becoming PM.
Unluckily for the Labour Party he has no chance of being removed before 2020 at the earliest.
If there is an early election he and the far-left will claim the Kinnock precedent and say that he hasn't had a fair crack of the whip yet so should continue. He will demand to do so and his personality cult of Momentum will ensure it. Even after 2020 that may well happen.
There is a very real possibility of Corbyn destroying the Labour Party entirely. If he remains tin-eared to the concerns of the northern working class (and why shouldn't he as he is to everything else?) then Labour may be destroyed there as it has in Scotland. Wales is up for grabs too based on the Brexit result.
Corbyn represents a very narrow urban middle-class lefty world view that does well in London, Manchester, Brighton and Twitter. Nowhere else.
Considering all of the above, if there was a possibility of joining a centre-left, modern party I would do it in a heart-beat. The LibDems are a poisoned and decimated brand after naively cooperating with the Tories so they won't do, but if there was a genuine moderate left-wing alternative I would resign my membership and join it immediately.
There is no party for my moderate, sensible left-wing politics currently. I believe in a welfare safety-net worth its name, and that it is shameful that we have homelessness in one of the richest countries in the world. I want a cooperative attitude to Europe. I would also like far greater regulation of Corporate pay with a German model of Union representation on company boards. The Conservative Party doesn't care about poverty. It claims to, but actions speak far louder than words.
This country is crying out for an alternative to permanent right-wing politics. I only hope some of the Parliamentary Labour Party have the guts to try for it.
I doubt they will and the UK will suffer over the next 10-30 years because there is now no opposition.
But it's just a generic quote, it works as a Rorschach test.
From an angry clown to a happy clown, as the media would put it.
Or 8 weeks till early voting starts.
"Corbyn represents a very narrow urban middle-class lefty world view that does well in London, Manchester, Brighton and Twitter. Nowhere else."
Unfortunately, too many are lost in the echo chamber of social media where they are just talking to one another, rather than swing voters. Should they encounter a swing voter, who expresses any doubts about Corbyn's suitability as a potential PM, they seem to be telling them to 'vote Tory' as a tactic.
NPXMP would do well to look far more closely at what has happened to Labour here in Scotland. They have no divine right to exist as one of the two main parties, and if voters decide they're out of touch, extinction or irrelevance is a real possibility.