The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
One interesting idea I have seen today is that MPs should actually ask their CLPs to be reselected as soon the vote result is announced. The logic is intriguing: * If they ask for reselection and win, they will essentially have a renewed mandate that will allow them to carry on criticising Corbyn. * If they lose, the chances are they were going to lose anyway at some stage later in the electoral cycle, so this gives them more time to make plans for the future and/or to plan a breakaway.
Anyway, let's take the classic example of my own seat - Cannock. Around 100,000 inhabitants, 90% urban, ex-coal mining, public sector employment at roughly 10% at a guess, the rest in skilled/semi skilled light industry or retail. One or two wealthy pockets but mostly quite poor. House prices are low and so is immigration. Has voted Labour 1945-70 and again 1992-2010 (possibly with one other spell in between).
The workers are simply not interested in Corbyn. They even dislike him. They actually expressed interest in Miliband, but they were turned off in the election by the fact that the Labour candidate was a certifiable lunatic who thought the way to win an election in Mid-Staffordshire was to campaign on Labour's record on the NHS.
With rare exceptions the public sector are increasingly embarrassed by Corbyn's antics, and study their coffee mugs when people talk about him. He sometimes makes good points, they mumble, but...
Which leaves the prospect that Labour will come third if UKIP pick the candidate who spent half his time railing against the iniquities of the EU and half his time fighting to save the disabled children's playground.
Now Cannock is typical of many seats in the WM or even the north. It is the type of seat that Labour have got to win to take power, and challenge in to remain relevant. But here, Corbyn's leadership is causing them to disintegrate.
We've established Labour are writing off the south despite there being many winnable seats there. They are losing ground in the Midlands. If they are struggling in Cannock, I have no doubt they will struggle in the semi-rural north. Which raises the question - where and what can they win under Corbyn?
And that is why, whatever Smith's faults and inadequacies, it is desperately important that he should win, even if he then has to resign later in favour of someone better.
And to add to that - therefore this time there is a merit in a split. Because it could hardly make things worse but it might just conceivably salvage something.
Cannock has been trending Tory for decades. Under different boundaries it produced the biggest pro Tory swing in 1970 when Jennie Lee was ousted.
But we've been told that Corbyn will presenting an attractive offer to the electorate, for the first time in years.
I think the main point was made on the previous thread ( sorry can't remember who).
The splitters would find it very difficult if not impossible to retain their Labour seats if another candidate branded Labour stood against them.
However......
Any MP that has not already declared themselves an apostle of the great messiah is a sitting duck for deselection and will lose their seat anyway whatever they now try to do or say. They are already identified of course as they well know
Truly a damned either way.......no win situation......catch 22.
"Should I stay or should I go?"
So...either lose vs Jezza's Labour, get deslected, or...the third possibility: do nothing and be part of the great Labour wipeout under Jez in 2020.
(Someone said an idea was to ruffle none of Jezza's feathers, sit tight, and hope Lab gets wiped out in 2020 but that their own seat would be spared. Too complicated to be a likely scenario.)
IMO better to split and be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
I think that a reason that a split is more likely than not to happen is that it needs only a relatively small number of Labour MPs to initiate it, before the rest are faced with the absolute choice that requires them to get off the fence. You could have made exactly the same arguments as why it would have been better to give Corbyn more rope to hang himself with and wait until after serious local election losses in May 2017 or 2018 before acting. It took though only a small group around Hilary Benn to act, and then the rest felt obliged to either follow suit or to declare themselves for Corbyn.
Well I would hope so but looking at how difficult it was to get first Eagle, then Smith, then no one else to challenge Jezza I am cautious about it happening. Don't forget it's still politics: as people eject themselves the pool gets smaller and opportunities increase. While it lasts, of course.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
Yes, it would be interesting to know how many raging against Apple following last night's lead on the news, also voted Brexit. As Remainers have pointed out, regional economic power blocs like the EU can take on big corporates and tax issues. Individual nations won't or can't.
I'm looking forward the appeal if the Irish Government appeal and Apple's appeal. I suspect Apple won't be paying out.
It'll enrich the legal profession and accountants.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
if I was Apple and their counsl, I'd be hammering home the message, 'The Irish Government says we don't owe this tax'
Since the Irish Government is (effectively) co-accused, I'm not sure that will help Apple.
Agreed. This is effectively a State Aid issue. Strange that they started with Eire rather than all those businesses supposedly based in Luxembourg though, isn't it?
It quite literally is a (unlawful) State Aid issue, that's what the Commission found.
Starbucks in the Netherlands had a similar but much less value) ruling.
One interesting idea I have seen today is that MPs should actually ask their CLPs to be reselected as soon the vote result is announced. The logic is intriguing: * If they ask for reselection and win, they will essentially have a renewed mandate that will allow them to carry on criticising Corbyn. * If they lose, the chances are they were going to lose anyway at some stage later in the electoral cycle, so this gives them more time to make plans for the future and/or to plan a breakaway.
Not sure that works - with the boundary changes coming up, this will all be revisited in some form anyway.
Being re-selected next month does not necessarily mean not being kicked out in 6 months time.
- Corbyn's strongest support is in the Midlands and Wales - not, as commonly assumed, in London, where Smith makes his strongest showing. - It's pretty evenly spread across age groups - not, as commonly assumed, mostly young members - Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large, which is now evenly divided betwen Corbyn and Smith and don't know. - Smith is seen primarily by members as untrutworthy (45%) and divisive (37%), though 30% think him competent. - Most members and 2015 Lab voters want a secvond EU referendum, but this isn't shared at the moment by the wider public or by Corbyn supporters in particular. - Members' view of Traingate was basically "meh".
Be interesting to see how the no headphone jack iPhone is going to go down.
Less popular than when they moved over to the lightning connector and rendering my very expensive speaker system redundant.
Maplins is your friend, here.
It's ok, I have wireless headphones already.
just goes to show how age changes things..several years ago I thought that the only two shops you needed were The North Face and Timberland. Today it's Maplins and Wilkos.
Maplins is the "I don't want to wait for an online purchase to arrive, but still need this part" shop. I do like Wilko however, it is great value on lots of stuff.
When, as we all have to these days, you need a part that connects this system to that system, which will allow you to play it all through the other system, then there is nothing to beat a Maplins' sales assistant. Online? It's a lottery.
- Corbyn's strongest support is in the Midlands and Wales - not, as commonly assumed, in London, where Smith makes his strongest showing. - It's pretty evenly spread across age groups - not, as commonly assumed, mostly young members - Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large, which is now evenly divided betwen Corbyn and Smith and don't know. - Smith is seen primarily by members as untrutworthy (45%) and divisive (37%), though 30% think him competent. - Most members and 2015 Lab voters want a secvond EU referendum, but this isn't shared at the moment by the wider public or by Corbyn supporters in particular. - Members' view of Traingate was basically "meh".
Does YouGov have figures on where Labour members are? Or are the regional weightings in proportion to the population?
Apple can do one as far as I'm concerned, and I'm no fan of the commission.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
I cannot understand this hatred for Apple.
There have been three important apples that have changed the course of human history
1) The apple Eve persuaded Adam to eat
2) The apple that landed on Sir Issac Newton's head
3) The Apple Steve Jobs helped to create.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
One interesting idea I have seen today is that MPs should actually ask their CLPs to be reselected as soon the vote result is announced. The logic is intriguing: * If they ask for reselection and win, they will essentially have a renewed mandate that will allow them to carry on criticising Corbyn. * If they lose, the chances are they were going to lose anyway at some stage later in the electoral cycle, so this gives them more time to make plans for the future and/or to plan a breakaway.
Interesting point. The only downside to this is that if they ARE reselected, they are then basically committed to the Corbyn project whether they want to be or not!
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
Apple can do one as far as I'm concerned, and I'm no fan of the commission.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
I cannot understand this hatred for Apple.
There have been three important apples that have changed the course of human history
1) The apple Eve persuaded Adam to eat
2) The apple that landed on Sir Issac Newton's head
3) The Apple Steve Jobs helped to create.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
- Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large.
And there is the real problem for Labour.
When your Parliamentary forces have rejected the leader through an overwhelming vote of no confidence, and 40+% of your membership share that view - where is there a way forward?
No MP who voted for the vote of no confidence can - in all good conscience - turn round and then agree to serve in the Shadow Cabinet without being massively diminished for being so weak. I don't buy the line that they would be serving the Party by doing so.
No MP can honestly say that this campaign has shown Corbyn to be a great leader now worthy of support - as nothing has changed about him or his policies.
The membership who don't vote for Corbyn will not see a short to medium term future for themselves within the Labour Party. A few stalwarts might fight on - but the cause looks hopeless for now. At least until Momentum is defeated.
Apple can do one as far as I'm concerned, and I'm no fan of the commission.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
I cannot understand this hatred for Apple.
There have been three important apples that have changed the course of human history
1) The apple Eve persuaded Adam to eat
2) The apple that landed on Sir Issac Newton's head
3) The Apple Steve Jobs helped to create.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
Who decides "what's right"?
The Guardian.
Sorry, popular opinion mostly.
I suspect Irish popular opinion may not be agin the Apple deal - they have had long enough to vote out the governments that approved it....
That's fine - perhaps they can also stop acting like Corbyn does not use the same political skills as others in that case, like spin, obfuscation, vague meaningless sound bites. And we know they do, since 'He's not like the rest' is a key part of his appeal, but which on this incident (not that there were no others) should be modulated, if one likes him, to 'He's not as bad as the rest'.
Apple can do one as far as I'm concerned, and I'm no fan of the commission.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
I cannot understand this hatred for Apple.
There have been three important apples that have changed the course of human history
1) The apple Eve persuaded Adam to eat
2) The apple that landed on Sir Issac Newton's head
3) The Apple Steve Jobs helped to create.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
Who decides "what's right"?
The Guardian.
Sorry, popular opinion mostly.
I suspect Irish popular opinion may not be agin the Apple deal - they have had long enough to vote out the governments that approved it....
They didn't notice it. I think it is around 50:50.
Mr. kle4, yes, indeed and it was a significant success for the Eastern Roman Empire, taking advantage of a divided Muslim world to, against all expectations, actually succeed. However, it did also lead to more bad blood between the Latins and the Byzantines.
Mr. Thompson, I think Ed Tudor-Pole was the chap I saw most of as host. Ex-Sex Pistol, apparently.
- Corbyn's strongest support is in the Midlands and Wales - not, as commonly assumed, in London, where Smith makes his strongest showing. - It's pretty evenly spread across age groups - not, as commonly assumed, mostly young members - Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large, which is now evenly divided betwen Corbyn and Smith and don't know. - Smith is seen primarily by members as untrutworthy (45%) and divisive (37%), though 30% think him competent. - Most members and 2015 Lab voters want a secvond EU referendum, but this isn't shared at the moment by the wider public or by Corbyn supporters in particular. - Members' view of Traingate was basically "meh".
from a few posts back, Nick. Your view that the media has "stitched up" Corbyn is an interesting one. I think they have more simply reported his activities, associations, sympathies and utterances.
Where have they stitched him up? I think it is telling that you should think so and I'd like to know an example.
Apple can do one as far as I'm concerned, and I'm no fan of the commission.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
I cannot understand this hatred for Apple.
There have been three important apples that have changed the course of human history
1) The apple Eve persuaded Adam to eat
2) The apple that landed on Sir Issac Newton's head
3) The Apple Steve Jobs helped to create.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
The law is a very flexible beast when necessary. What is a judgement today might not be the same judgement tomorrow. They are, at the end of the day, just opinions and every law is open to interpretation.
And remember that it wasn't a court who handed down this decision - it was the Commission. Which is an entirely political body. The courts have yet to rule on this.
Fair point, except that the Commission isn't 'entirely political' (it's a mix of administrative and political, which is why opponents give mixed messages when attacking it).
But I agree that whether legal or bureaucratic, decisions are open to interpretation. All the same, the body whose primary job is to regulate the Single Market did decide that the tax deal wasn't fair.
- Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large.
And there is the real problem for Labour.
When your Parliamentary forces have rejected the leader through an overwhelming vote of no confidence, and 40+% of your membership share that view - where is there a way forward?
No MP who voted for the vote of no confidence can - in all good conscience - turn round and then agree to serve in the Shadow Cabinet without being massively diminished for being so weak. I don't buy the line that they would be serving the Party by doing so.
No MP can honestly say that this campaign has shown Corbyn to be a great leader now worthy of support - as nothing has changed about him or his policies.
The membership who don't vote for Corbyn will not see a short to medium term future for themselves within the Labour Party. A few stalwarts might fight on - but the cause looks hopeless for now. At least until Momentum is defeated.
Where is there a way forward?
I agree with your 3rd and 4th paragraphs as to the problem they have, but at least one of those who resigned already unresigned, so others might well follow suit or at least try to say they accept the will of the party when he wins again.
The problem is while the short and medium term looks bleak, they don't look like going anywhere, so there is less pressure on Corbyn than there appears to be. Those who won't pretend they think he is ok now will mostly go quiet, or at least quieter than now, lest they face retaliation which would prevent a long term response, and they will just sit and hope for a chance. If not before 2020, then after 2020 if they lose heavily as they think.
Sure, that expectation there is a hope then might be incorrect, if they've given up the fight before then, but it is very clear (unless Smith springs a surprise) that the MPs and those who support them cannot beat Corbyn, that they won't support another party en masse, that creating a new one is too hard and too damaging to the brand they are loyal to despite Corbyn being in charge of it, and therefore that they will seek any excuse to not provoke further unless victory looks assured, they will try to play a long game, on the basis if they survive a thrashing in 2020 they can rebuild, but if they get completely ostracised now they cannot even do that.
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
So essentially all* those responsible for the rise of Corbynism are important figures in the anti-Corbyn PLP?
Oops.
*I'll exclude Burnham 'cos I suspect even he doesn't know where he stands.
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
So essentially all* those responsible for the rise of Corbynism are important figures in the anti-Corbyn PLP?
Oops.
*I'll exclude Burnham 'cos I suspect even he doesn't know where he stands.
Where do you want Burnham to stand? I am sure an accommodation can be reached.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
I cannot understand this hatred for Apple.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
The law is a very flexible beast when necessary. What is a judgement today might not be the same judgement tomorrow. They are, at the end of the day, just opinions and every law is open to interpretation.
And remember that it wasn't a court who handed down this decision - it was the Commission. Which is an entirely political body. The courts have yet to rule on this.
Fair point, except that the Commission isn't 'entirely political' (it's a mix of administrative and political, which is why opponents give mixed messages when attacking it).
But I agree that whether legal or bureaucratic, decisions are open to interpretation. All the same, the body whose primary job is to regulate the Single Market did decide that the tax deal wasn't fair.
Until this is tested by the courts, I am not going to get excited by it.
The current Commission will not be around forever. Juncker will be remembered as the man who lost the UK from the project - as well as for a number of other failiings.
The next Commission (which is likely to be the one to deal with the results of the first round of the real legal battle) will probably be very different - given the direction of travel in a lot of member states.
- Corbyn's strongest support is in the Midlands and Wales - not, as commonly assumed, in London, where Smith makes his strongest showing. - It's pretty evenly spread across age groups - not, as commonly assumed, mostly young members - Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large, which is now evenly divided betwen Corbyn and Smith and don't know. - Smith is seen primarily by members as untrutworthy (45%) and divisive (37%), though 30% think him competent. - Most members and 2015 Lab voters want a secvond EU referendum, but this isn't shared at the moment by the wider public or by Corbyn supporters in particular. - Members' view of Traingate was basically "meh".
from a few posts back, Nick. Your view that the media has "stitched up" Corbyn is an interesting one. I think they have more simply reported his activities, associations, sympathies and utterances.
Where have they stitched him up? I think it is telling that you should think so and I'd like to know an example.
The press have accurately reported his views and his associations.
It is reasonable to report, is it not, that the man chosen by Corbyn to help launch his digital manifesto yesterday is an anti-Zionist conspiracist who has close connections to the Communist party and has defended the publication of books that praise paedophilia?
Mr. kle4, yes, indeed and it was a significant success for the Eastern Roman Empire, taking advantage of a divided Muslim world to, against all expectations, actually succeed. However, it did also lead to more bad blood between the Latins and the Byzantines.
Mr. Thompson, I think Ed Tudor-Pole was the chap I saw most of as host. Ex-Sex Pistol, apparently.
Sort of ex-Pistol, anyway. Sang a couple of songs in 'the Great Rock n Roll Swindle', by which token he ended up on the suondtrack to the film, which is ostensibly a pistols record. Better known as lead singer of Tenpole Tudor.
- Corbyn's strongest support is in the Midlands and Wales - not, as commonly assumed, in London, where Smith makes his strongest showing. - It's pretty evenly spread across age groups - not, as commonly assumed, mostly young members - Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large, which is now evenly divided betwen Corbyn and Smith and don't know. - Smith is seen primarily by members as untrutworthy (45%) and divisive (37%), though 30% think him competent. - Most members and 2015 Lab voters want a secvond EU referendum, but this isn't shared at the moment by the wider public or by Corbyn supporters in particular. - Members' view of Traingate was basically "meh".
There's plenty more. This one is worth noting too:
"Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party" Net results: - GB adults -35 - Labour members before May 2015 (who haven't yet left) -36 - 2015 Labour voters -17 - Current Labour members/reg supporters +18, of which Corbyn supporters +89
"Labour moderates may have thought Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader was just a bad dream. But it has quickly become a living nightmare.
On Tuesday, I wrote about their bid to defeat him in electoral open combat, better known as a leadership election. They have "unleashed hell" on him, "stabbing him in the front, back and sides", yet Mr Corbyn fights on. I even photoshopped him as Maximus from the film Gladiator for some reason. But it turns out that the election has been worse for them than they thought. A new poll shows that he's not entering the final few weeks battered and bruised; he's actually in even finer fettle than when he began."
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
It's probably what @rcs1000 was getting at yesterday, Ireland may argue that it was a time limited special economic measure intended to boost growth the argument may be around what the time limit should be.
Then again, I don't see much scope for a reduction. Ireland and Apple have broken the rules over state aid on an industrial scale, it's time for this to end. As I said yesterday, I'm OK with them lowering their headline rate of corporation tax to 1%, if they can make the sums work and they don't get themselves kicked out of the EU then that's up to them. What I'm not in favour of is them flagrantly breaking single market rules and then complaining about it afterwards. If they don't like the rules then the answer is leaving the EU.
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
- Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large.
And there is the real problem for Labour.
When your Parliamentary forces have rejected the leader through an overwhelming vote of no confidence, and 40+% of your membership share that view - where is there a way forward?
No MP who voted for the vote of no confidence can - in all good conscience - turn round and then agree to serve in the Shadow Cabinet without being massively diminished for being so weak. I don't buy the line that they would be serving the Party by doing so.
No MP can honestly say that this campaign has shown Corbyn to be a great leader now worthy of support - as nothing has changed about him or his policies.
The membership who don't vote for Corbyn will not see a short to medium term future for themselves within the Labour Party. A few stalwarts might fight on - but the cause looks hopeless for now. At least until Momentum is defeated.
Where is there a way forward?
I agree with your 3rd and 4th paragraphs as to the problem they have, but at least one of those who resigned already unresigned, so others might well follow suit or at least try to say they accept the will of the party when he wins again.
[snip]
They might, but why would a second period of service be any more effective than the first? None of the reasons why they all resigned have gone away. Corbyn remains uninterested in leading in a traditional manner, nor is he capable of doing so if he were so inclined. He doesn't accept collective responsibility applies to him; he doesn't have the self-discipline required of a leader balancing factions within his party; he can't put together a coherent policy platform; he can't staff his back office effectively; he can't handle hostile media. MPs who judge him by traditional standards find him grossly lacking - hence the VoNC. And that hasn't changed and won't change.
Mr. kle4, yes, indeed and it was a significant success for the Eastern Roman Empire, taking advantage of a divided Muslim world to, against all expectations, actually succeed. However, it did also lead to more bad blood between the Latins and the Byzantines.
Mr. Thompson, I think Ed Tudor-Pole was the chap I saw most of as host. Ex-Sex Pistol, apparently.
Sort of ex-Pistol, anyway. Sang a couple of songs in 'the Great Rock n Roll Swindle', by which token he ended up on the suondtrack to the film, which is ostensibly a pistols record. Better known as lead singer of Tenpole Tudor.
Mr. kle4, yes, indeed and it was a significant success for the Eastern Roman Empire, taking advantage of a divided Muslim world to, against all expectations, actually succeed. However, it did also lead to more bad blood between the Latins and the Byzantines.
Mr. Thompson, I think Ed Tudor-Pole was the chap I saw most of as host. Ex-Sex Pistol, apparently.
Sort of ex-Pistol, anyway. Sang a couple of songs in 'the Great Rock n Roll Swindle', by which token he ended up on the suondtrack to the film, which is ostensibly a pistols record. Better known as lead singer of Tenpole Tudor.
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
Maybe - but without Harman's inept leadership in relation to Osborne's July 2015 Budget Corbyn would not have gained the momentum to win. At best , he would have managed a respectable third place behind Burnham and Cooper.
Apple can do one as far as I'm concerned, and I'm no fan of the commission.
Apple has been taking the P for a long time, I doubt they will find many friends outside their fanbase.
I cannot understand this hatred for Apple.
There have been three important apples that have changed the course of human history
1) The apple Eve persuaded Adam to eat
2) The apple that landed on Sir Issac Newton's head
3) The Apple Steve Jobs helped to create.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
The argument runs that it has always been illegal, it's just that nobody knew. The Commission is using competition as a way of involving itself in member state fiscal matters - its a wider and more muscular interpretation of competition than was previously the case (although the cases involving the Netherlands and Luxembourg in the last 24 months were straws in the wind). It's also very different from the way that the US looks at competition matters.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
For Leavers you would have to include the Nokia 6230.
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
Maybe - but without Harman's inept leadership in relation to Osborne's July 2015 Budget Corbyn would not have gained the momentum to win. At best , he would have managed a respectable third place behind Burnham and Cooper.
That's what I said. Corbyn really has Harman to thank. As well as Beckett, Burnham, Miliband and Watson.
Trump may surprise in the debates. However his debating history and personality seems to tend to your view. Will he be able in a one on one for 2 hours on 3 occasions hold it all together? Probably not.
On the race. Trump has to effect a game changer. If we allocate to Trump all the close swing states he is presently competitive but losing - Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa and Nevada, he loses 273/265. He has to flip a state where he is polling badly - Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, New Jersey or New Mexico to win or New Hampshire to tie, if he can hold NE CD2.
It's not looking pretty for The Donald as it stands.
There's also Maine CD2, which plus the states you list above and NH would give him a 270-268 win. Realistically though he needs Pennsylvania to have a mandate to govern.
Ha ha - no, sadly not. While I own several Pistols records, in practice the most rock n roll I get is knocking out a particularly satisfying spreadsheet.
I would love it if it turned out Paul Cook was a semi-regular contributor on here.
There have been three important apples that have changed the course of human history
1) The apple Eve persuaded Adam to eat
2) The apple that landed on Sir Issac Newton's head
3) The Apple Steve Jobs helped to create.
This thread was composed on a Macbook, the previous two were composed on an iPhone, and the one before that on an iPad.
Apple is awesome, I love it more than I loved AV and 80s pop music.
You've rather made my point for me !
But I don't hate Apple. I used to have an iPhone, but prefer Samsung now. I still use my iPad, it's very good.
Their tax games are still reprehensible though.
They used the tax system as it was designed. You Android fanboys are going all Occupy Wall Street/Momentum over Apple's taxes.
It was legal, it was legitimate. Just think, you're agreeing with the hated EU, the one you regularly rail against, simply because you don't like apple.
If it was legal and legitimate, it wouldn't just have been ruled against. Admittedly, that's more Ireland's fault than Apple's but there are financial practices in various territories across the world that might be legal locally but that doesn't make them right.
The law is a very flexible beast when necessary. What is a judgement today might not be the same judgement tomorrow. They are, at the end of the day, just opinions and every law is open to interpretation.
And remember that it wasn't a court who handed down this decision - it was the Commission. Which is an entirely political body. The courts have yet to rule on this.
Fair point, except that the Commission isn't 'entirely political' (it's a mix of administrative and political, which is why opponents give mixed messages when attacking it).
But I agree that whether legal or bureaucratic, decisions are open to interpretation. All the same, the body whose primary job is to regulate the Single Market did decide that the tax deal wasn't fair.
The Commission's role in managing competition is entirely apoliticial. The fact it happens to share half an institution with the a quasi-legislative body is really co-incidental, as much as the House of Lords (the court) was a political body for sharing a tradition with the House of Lords (upper legislative chamber). The competitive remit is one of the few parts of the EU most lawyers can actually work with...
- Corbyn's strongest support is in the Midlands and Wales - not, as commonly assumed, in London, where Smith makes his strongest showing. - It's pretty evenly spread across age groups - not, as commonly assumed, mostly young members - Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large, which is now evenly divided betwen Corbyn and Smith and don't know. - Smith is seen primarily by members as untrutworthy (45%) and divisive (37%), though 30% think him competent. - Most members and 2015 Lab voters want a secvond EU referendum, but this isn't shared at the moment by the wider public or by Corbyn supporters in particular. - Members' view of Traingate was basically "meh".
from a few posts back, Nick. Your view that the media has "stitched up" Corbyn is an interesting one. I think they have more simply reported his activities, associations, sympathies and utterances.
Where have they stitched him up? I think it is telling that you should think so and I'd like to know an example.
I saw Ed Tudor-Pole doing a solo set as support for Saxon (iirc) a couple of years ago. He was brilliant. Finished with Swords of a Thousand Men (natch).
I don't think there's any doubt that the UK would qualify for equivalence instantly.
What political pressures there may be on either side however would be critical to it actually happening.
Yes, indeed. Plus it could be subject to political interference later. For example, would UK abolition of the brain-dead bonus cap be regarded as disqualifying us from equivalence?
I don't think there's any doubt that the UK would qualify for equivalence instantly.
What political pressures there may be on either side however would be critical to it actually happening.
Yes, indeed. Plus it could be subject to political interference later. For example, would UK abolition of the brain-dead bonus cap be regarded as disqualifying us from equivalence?
Equivalence might be a useful transitionary tool if we are to leave the single market and passporting zone. I can't see any way we would continue with it over the long term though. Even within the EEA we would have some level of say over the regulations, with equivalence there would be none which would leave us in a very weak position. Better to use it for a while and then break the link on our terms when the industry is ready to do so and when we have opened up high value markets to replace possible lost trade.
Ha ha - no, sadly not. While I own several Pistols records, in practice the most rock n roll I get is knocking out a particularly satisfying spreadsheet.
I would love it if it turned out Paul Cook was a semi-regular contributor on here.
Mr. kle4, yes, indeed and it was a significant success for the Eastern Roman Empire, taking advantage of a divided Muslim world to, against all expectations, actually succeed. However, it did also lead to more bad blood between the Latins and the Byzantines.
Mr. Thompson, I think Ed Tudor-Pole was the chap I saw most of as host. Ex-Sex Pistol, apparently.
Sort of ex-Pistol, anyway. Sang a couple of songs in 'the Great Rock n Roll Swindle', by which token he ended up on the suondtrack to the film, which is ostensibly a pistols record. Better known as lead singer of Tenpole Tudor.
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
Maybe - but without Harman's inept leadership in relation to Osborne's July 2015 Budget Corbyn would not have gained the momentum to win. At best , he would have managed a respectable third place behind Burnham and Cooper.
That's what I said. Corbyn really has Harman to thank. As well as Beckett, Burnham, Miliband and Watson.
And Brown, for squashing so many potential next-generation contenders.
Trump may surprise in the debates. However his debating history and personality seems to tend to your view. Will he be able in a one on one for 2 hours on 3 occasions hold it all together? Probably not.
On the race. Trump has to effect a game changer. If we allocate to Trump all the close swing states he is presently competitive but losing - Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa and Nevada, he loses 273/265. He has to flip a state where he is polling badly - Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, New Jersey or New Mexico to win or New Hampshire to tie, if he can hold NE CD2.
It's not looking pretty for The Donald as it stands.
There's also Maine CD2, which plus the states you list above and NH would give him a 270-268 win. Realistically though he needs Pennsylvania to have a mandate to govern.
Emerson had Trump just 3% behind in Pennsylvania earlier this week
I believe that if Jeremy Corbyn is re-elected the man with the greatest headache will be John Bercow. He is responsible for parliament working fairly and debates remaining balanced. Just as a judge worries about a man receiving a fair trial if his advocate is wholly inexperienced and incompetent and unable to ask the right questions, so our system depends on ministers being tested and challenged thoroughly. That simply is not happening with the standard of the Shadow team . Could not the 172 no confidence Labour MPs provide JC with shadow spokesmen on the strict understanding that they are not thereby supporting his mad ideas? Otherwise I shudder for our democracy if the opposition viewpoint is as presented by Abbott, Cat Smith ,Burgon and Paul Flynn.
But even further off-topic, the latest Rail magazine has an article about a discussion they had with Labour's transport secretary Andy McDonald. In it, he goes further into Labour's plans for renationalisation of the railways. Presented without comment:
*) Labour claims their plans will save money. *) They will not nationalise ROSCOs, but will allow nationalised operator to commission trainsets without ROSCOs. *) They will not nationalise freight or Open Access operators. *) Vertical integration of track and trains under consideration (merging Network Rail and the operators) *) 10% cut in regulated fares.
I don't think there's any doubt that the UK would qualify for equivalence instantly.
What political pressures there may be on either side however would be critical to it actually happening.
Yes, indeed. Plus it could be subject to political interference later. For example, would UK abolition of the brain-dead bonus cap be regarded as disqualifying us from equivalence?
It is of course a much bigger stick with which to threaten us. Previously we could argue the toss even if we didn't always win. With equivalence, it would seem to be pretty straightforward - either you follow or you're out. FTT anyone?
Incidentally by my calculations electricity is down about 3.4% this year, compared to last, with 0.7 percentage points attributable to the milder weather in the last week of January/first week of February.
Mr. 124, whilst that helped Corbyn, I'm not sure it made the critical difference.
Mr. Topping, what are you suggesting?
No it was crucial to Corbyn's success because the other three contenders were in the Shadow Cabinet and had to abstain on the key vote. Corbyn was then able to present himself as the only candidate prepared to oppose Tory Welfare reforms. Had Burnham and/or Cooper resigned from the Shadow Cabinet for the duration of the contest, they would have been free to join Corbyn in voting against the proposals and I believe Corbyn would have been denied the leadership.
One interesting idea I have seen today is that MPs should actually ask their CLPs to be reselected as soon the vote result is announced. The logic is intriguing: * If they ask for reselection and win, they will essentially have a renewed mandate that will allow them to carry on criticising Corbyn. * If they lose, the chances are they were going to lose anyway at some stage later in the electoral cycle, so this gives them more time to make plans for the future and/or to plan a breakaway.
I suppose a lot of personal calculation amongst the 230 odd individuals comes into play in terms of reselections. Something like:-
1) Am I a die hard Corbynista a la Abbott/Thornberry? If yes - no issue. 2) Am I going to retire anyway in 2020? If yes, no issue. 3) Can I wangle myself a safe parachute like mayor of somewhere or a job outside politics a la Burnham,( or the media somewhere)? If yes no problem. 4) Have I a big personal vote and think I can rely on the electorate in my constituency to ride out anything? ( Giesela Stuart? Frank Field?) In which case sit tight. 5) I am of independent means and don't care anyway financially and or I'm politically principled enough to fight the buggers and go down in flames (standing against them even?). In which case no problem. 6) I can face defecting. (But would you be honour bound to stand these days post Carswell and Reckless?)
How many is that though? Anybody got any thoughts?
Or: None of the above - I need the job, so I'll cave in support Jezza in a Damascene conversion and hunker down. It might not be very glorious the latter option, but I'm sure having a source of income plays on many minds for just the same reasons as the rest of us.
I saw Ed Tudor-Pole doing a solo set as support for Saxon (iirc) a couple of years ago. He was brilliant. Finished with Swords of a Thousand Men (natch).
There's also Maine CD2, which plus the states you list above and NH would give him a 270-268 win. Realistically though he needs Pennsylvania to have a mandate to govern.
We heard talk of Maine CD2 in 08/12 that came to nothing and will do so again this year. The mandate is the Electoral College and nothing else, as Bush losing the national vote to Gore by over half a million votes in 2000 showed.
Incidentally by my calculations electricity is down about 3.4% this year, compared to last, with 0.7 percentage points attributable to the milder weather in the last week of January/first week of February.
I presume you mean usage; in which case that's interesting and potentially very useful.
If 0.7% was down to a milder winter, what's the other 2.7% caused by?
I believe that if Jeremy Corbyn is re-elected the man with the greatest headache will be John Bercow. He is responsible for parliament working fairly and debates remaining balanced. Just as a judge worries about a man receiving a fair trial if his advocate is wholly inexperienced and incompetent and unable to ask the right questions, so our system depends on ministers being tested and challenged thoroughly. That simply is not happening with the standard of the Shadow team . Could not the 172 no confidence Labour MPs provide JC with shadow spokesmen on the strict understanding that they are not thereby supporting his mad ideas? Otherwise I shudder for our democracy if the opposition viewpoint is as presented by Abbott, Cat Smith ,Burgon and Paul Flynn.
Typically Bercow has provided more opposition to Tory ministers than Corbyn's front bench
- Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large.
And there is the real problem for Labour.
When your Parliamentary forces have rejected the leader through an overwhelming vote of no confidence, and 40+% of your membership share that view - where is there a way forward?
No MP who voted for the vote of no confidence can - in all good conscience - turn round and then agree to serve in the Shadow Cabinet without being massively diminished for being so weak. I don't buy the line that they would be serving the Party by doing so.
No MP can honestly say that this campaign has shown Corbyn to be a great leader now worthy of support - as nothing has changed about him or his policies.
The membership who don't vote for Corbyn will not see a short to medium term future for themselves within the Labour Party. A few stalwarts might fight on - but the cause looks hopeless for now. At least until Momentum is defeated.
Where is there a way forward?
I agree with your 3rd and 4th paragraphs as to the problem they have, but at least one of those who resigned already unresigned, so others might well follow suit or at least try to say they accept the will of the party when he wins again.
[snip]
They might, but why would a second period of service be any more effective than the first? None of the reasons why they all resigned have gone away. Corbyn remains uninterested in leading in a traditional manner, nor is he capable of doing so if he were so inclined. He doesn't accept collective responsibility applies to him; he doesn't have the self-discipline required of a leader balancing factions within his party; he can't put together a coherent policy platform; he can't staff his back office effectively; he can't handle hostile media. MPs who judge him by traditional standards find him grossly lacking - hence the VoNC. And that hasn't changed and won't change.
I agree entirely. However I think they are so desperate not to split that if he does not unleash hell upon them, they will indeed, if only by keeping much quieter, try to suggest they accept the will of the party and giving him another chance et al. It makes no sense given the reasoning of why they resigned, but they'd rather make that embarrassing u-turn than continue open challenge I suspect. It's just too hard.
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
Maybe - but without Harman's inept leadership in relation to Osborne's July 2015 Budget Corbyn would not have gained the momentum to win. At best , he would have managed a respectable third place behind Burnham and Cooper.
That's what I said. Corbyn really has Harman to thank. As well as Beckett, Burnham, Miliband and Watson.
There’s quite a long list of culprits, however, the worst decision wrt the leadership race was the failure to peg the voting membership to those signed up at GE2015. – Not sure whose failure that was, but without that decision (and the £3 for vote controversy) the far left entryism could not have taken place.
[edit] to be fair to Ma Beckett, the only reason I tagged her was because she admitted to being a moron for lending Corbyn her vote although she was not alone in doing so.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
Did you see my post on this yesterday? The Irish government will claim the tax rebate falls under the regional development exceptions. The EU will say "grants and exemptions to stimulate employment in depressed areas are meant to be strictly time limited; 0.5% tax in perpertuity fails that." Ireland and the EU will compromise on x years, with x probably being quite a big number, so back tax payments will be relatively small. But Apple will move to paying 12.5% tax on its profits.
Trump may surprise in the debates. However his debating history and personality seems to tend to your view. Will he be able in a one on one for 2 hours on 3 occasions hold it all together? Probably not.
On the race. Trump has to effect a game changer. If we allocate to Trump all the close swing states he is presently competitive but losing - Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa and Nevada, he loses 273/265. He has to flip a state where he is polling badly - Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, New Jersey or New Mexico to win or New Hampshire to tie, if he can hold NE CD2.
It's not looking pretty for The Donald as it stands.
There's also Maine CD2, which plus the states you list above and NH would give him a 270-268 win. Realistically though he needs Pennsylvania to have a mandate to govern.
Emerson had Trump just 3% behind in Pennsylvania earlier this week
Incidentally by my calculations electricity is down about 3.4% this year, compared to last, with 0.7 percentage points attributable to the milder weather in the last week of January/first week of February.
I presume you mean usage; in which case that's interesting and potentially very useful.
If 0.7% was down to a milder winter, what's the other 2.7% caused by?
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
Did you see my post on this yesterday? The Irish government will claim the tax rebate falls under the regional development exceptions. The EU will say "grants and exemptions to stimulate employment in depressed areas are meant to be strictly time limited; 0.5% tax in perpertuity fails that." Ireland and the EU will compromise on x years, with x probably being quite a big number, so back tax payments will be relatively small. But Apple will move to paying 12.5% tax on its profits.
I disagree. The voting system precludes a positive split. It takes a hell of a lot to deselect an MP and changing the rules to make it easier is going to be very time-consuming. But if mass deselections do happen before the next general election, Corbyn will create the new official opposition. That may be the way forward.
I agree totally with you Southam. A split will NOT happen because of FPTP. The best thing that can happen to Labour assuming a Corbyn win, is an early election and an utter and total pasting from the Tories. If we lose heavily under Corbyn it may bring some members (and crucially the unions) to their senses.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
Did you see my post on this yesterday? The Irish government will claim the tax rebate falls under the regional development exceptions. The EU will say "grants and exemptions to stimulate employment in depressed areas are meant to be strictly time limited; 0.5% tax in perpertuity fails that." Ireland and the EU will compromise on x years, with x probably being quite a big number, so back tax payments will be relatively small. But Apple will move to paying 12.5% tax on its profits.
Everyone could save alot of legal fees by following this sensible line of argument.
One interesting idea I have seen today is that MPs should actually ask their CLPs to be reselected as soon the vote result is announced. The logic is intriguing: * If they ask for reselection and win, they will essentially have a renewed mandate that will allow them to carry on criticising Corbyn. * If they lose, the chances are they were going to lose anyway at some stage later in the electoral cycle, so this gives them more time to make plans for the future and/or to plan a breakaway.
I suppose a lot of personal calculation amongst the 230 odd individuals comes into play in terms of reselections. Something like:-
1) Am I a die hard Corbynista a la Abbott/Thornberry? If yes - no issue. 2) Am I going to retire anyway in 2020? If yes, no issue. 3) Can I wangle myself a safe parachute like mayor of somewhere or a job outside politics a la Burnham,( or the media somewhere)? If yes no problem. 4) Have I a big personal vote and think I can rely on the electorate in my constituency to ride out anything? ( Giesela Stuart? Frank Field?) In which case sit tight. 5) I am of independent means and don't care anyway financially and or I'm politically principled enough to fight the buggers and go down in flames (standing against them even?). In which case no problem. 6) I can face defecting. (But would you be honour bound to stand these days post Carswell and Reckless?)
How many is that though? Anybody got any thoughts?
Or: None of the above - I need the job, so I'll cave in support Jezza in a Damascene conversion and hunker down. It might not be very glorious the latter option, but I'm sure having a source of income plays on many minds for just the same reasons as the rest of us.
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
Did you see my post on this yesterday? The Irish government will claim the tax rebate falls under the regional development exceptions. The EU will say "grants and exemptions to stimulate employment in depressed areas are meant to be strictly time limited; 0.5% tax in perpertuity fails that." Ireland and the EU will compromise on x years, with x probably being quite a big number, so back tax payments will be relatively small. But Apple will move to paying 12.5% tax on its profits.
Everyone could save alot of legal fees by following this sensible line of argument.
Apple will try and defend the deal in perpetuity though so it's not very likely.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
Did you see my post on this yesterday? The Irish government will claim the tax rebate falls under the regional development exceptions. The EU will say "grants and exemptions to stimulate employment in depressed areas are meant to be strictly time limited; 0.5% tax in perpertuity fails that." Ireland and the EU will compromise on x years, with x probably being quite a big number, so back tax payments will be relatively small. But Apple will move to paying 12.5% tax on its profits.
Everyone could save alot of legal fees by following this sensible line of argument.
You make it sound as if saving a lot of legal fees is a good thing!
One interesting idea I have seen today is that MPs should actually ask their CLPs to be reselected as soon the vote result is announced. The logic is intriguing: * If they ask for reselection and win, they will essentially have a renewed mandate that will allow them to carry on criticising Corbyn. * If they lose, the chances are they were going to lose anyway at some stage later in the electoral cycle, so this gives them more time to make plans for the future and/or to plan a breakaway.
I suppose a lot of personal calculation amongst the 230 odd individuals comes into play in terms of reselections. Something like:-
1) Am I a die hard Corbynista a la Abbott/Thornberry? If yes - no issue. 2) Am I going to retire anyway in 2020? If yes, no issue. 3) Can I wangle myself a safe parachute like mayor of somewhere or a job outside politics a la Burnham,( or the media somewhere)? If yes no problem. 4) Have I a big personal vote and think I can rely on the electorate in my constituency to ride out anything? ( Giesela Stuart? Frank Field?) In which case sit tight. 5) I am of independent means and don't care anyway financially and or I'm politically principled enough to fight the buggers and go down in flames (standing against them even?). In which case no problem. 6) I can face defecting. (But would you be honour bound to stand these days post Carswell and Reckless?)
How many is that though? Anybody got any thoughts?
Or: None of the above - I need the job, so I'll cave in support Jezza in a Damascene conversion and hunker down. It might not be very glorious the latter option, but I'm sure having a source of income plays on many minds for just the same reasons as the rest of us.
I think these are all good but that there will be many more too. The human brain is brilliant at post hoc self-justification.
Incidentally by my calculations electricity is down about 3.4% this year, compared to last, with 0.7 percentage points attributable to the milder weather in the last week of January/first week of February.
I presume you mean usage; in which case that's interesting and potentially very useful.
If 0.7% was down to a milder winter, what's the other 2.7% caused by?
more efficient consumer electronics etc?
I doubt CE efficiency makes that much difference, especially as there are more and more gadgets out there. Industry, perhaps?
Having said that, a couple of decades ago a few of us secretly (**) installed some energy-saving software inside a piece of Consumer Electronics kit that was supposed to sell millions of units (*). Someone did a calculation that if all the units were in standby at the same time, that few lines of code would save the power of a small power station.
(*) Hahahahaha. (**) Great configuration management there.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
It's probably what @rcs1000 was getting at yesterday, Ireland may argue that it was a time limited special economic measure intended to boost growth the argument may be around what the time limit should be.
Then again, I don't see much scope for a reduction. Ireland and Apple have broken the rules over state aid on an industrial scale, it's time for this to end. As I said yesterday, I'm OK with them lowering their headline rate of corporation tax to 1%, if they can make the sums work and they don't get themselves kicked out of the EU then that's up to them. What I'm not in favour of is them flagrantly breaking single market rules and then complaining about it afterwards. If they don't like the rules then the answer is leaving the EU.
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
I think it would be Windows Phone and Blackberry users that would skew heavily towards Remain
Emerson had Trump just 3% behind in Pennsylvania earlier this week
And A+ rated Monmouth +8 yesterday. The last 10 polls have Clinton ahead, most of which were +6 or above.
Emerson was the second most accurate primary pollster this year, well above Monmouth
The 538 ratings are the gold standard.
As you will be aware some of the POTUS primary performers in 08 and 12 were cr*p come the general election.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
The argument runs that it has always been illegal, it's just that nobody knew. The Commission is using competition as a way of involving itself in member state fiscal matters - its a wider and more muscular interpretation of competition than was previously the case (although the cases involving the Netherlands and Luxembourg in the last 24 months were straws in the wind). It's also very different from the way that the US looks at competition matters.
I'm not sure I 100% agree with you.
Under NAFTA, it is your competitors who bring a case that you have benefited from illegal state aid. So, if this case had happened under NAFTA (and Ireland was Canada), then Samsung (USA) Inc. would bring a case before the ISDS tribunal arguing that the preferential tax rates that Apple benefited from were state aid, and that they (Samsung) was disadvantaged relative to Apple by the difference in tax rates.
I have little doubt that the ISDS tribunal (which would fine Canada under this scenario) would find in favour of Samsung.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
It's probably what @rcs1000 was getting at yesterday, Ireland may argue that it was a time limited special economic measure intended to boost growth the argument may be around what the time limit should be.
Then again, I don't see much scope for a reduction. Ireland and Apple have broken the rules over state aid on an industrial scale, it's time for this to end. As I said yesterday, I'm OK with them lowering their headline rate of corporation tax to 1%, if they can make the sums work and they don't get themselves kicked out of the EU then that's up to them. What I'm not in favour of is them flagrantly breaking single market rules and then complaining about it afterwards. If they don't like the rules then the answer is leaving the EU.
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
I think it would be Windows Phone and Blackberry users that would skew heavily towards Remain
Finding a sample of Windows Phone users large enough to poll might not be easy.
Just on the Yougov poll, do we think there would be many shy Smith supporters? I must say, I wouldn't want to shout about it if I was going to vote for him.
Comments
* If they ask for reselection and win, they will essentially have a renewed mandate that will allow them to carry on criticising Corbyn.
* If they lose, the chances are they were going to lose anyway at some stage later in the electoral cycle, so this gives them more time to make plans for the future and/or to plan a breakaway.
*sighs*
O tempora, o mores!
Mr. kle4, there were some sound fellows. Augustus, Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Alexander Severus, Heraclitus, Alexius Comnenus (and his son/grandson).
But you're right, an awful lot of them were either mad as a box of frogs or just plain vicious (or both).
Starbucks in the Netherlands had a similar but much less value) ruling.
Being re-selected next month does not necessarily mean not being kicked out in 6 months time.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0cpa7iw5l7/TimesResults_160830_LabourSelectorate.pdf
Points to note not previously highlighted here:
- Corbyn's strongest support is in the Midlands and Wales - not, as commonly assumed, in London, where Smith makes his strongest showing.
- It's pretty evenly spread across age groups - not, as commonly assumed, mostly young members
- Smith voters are more anti-Corbyn than the electorate at large, which is now evenly divided betwen Corbyn and Smith and don't know.
- Smith is seen primarily by members as untrutworthy (45%) and divisive (37%), though 30% think him competent.
- Most members and 2015 Lab voters want a secvond EU referendum, but this isn't shared at the moment by the wider public or by Corbyn supporters in particular.
- Members' view of Traingate was basically "meh".
Sorry, popular opinion mostly.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
When your Parliamentary forces have rejected the leader through an overwhelming vote of no confidence, and 40+% of your membership share that view - where is there a way forward?
No MP who voted for the vote of no confidence can - in all good conscience - turn round and then agree to serve in the Shadow Cabinet without being massively diminished for being so weak. I don't buy the line that they would be serving the Party by doing so.
No MP can honestly say that this campaign has shown Corbyn to be a great leader now worthy of support - as nothing has changed about him or his policies.
The membership who don't vote for Corbyn will not see a short to medium term future for themselves within the Labour Party. A few stalwarts might fight on - but the cause looks hopeless for now. At least until Momentum is defeated.
Where is there a way forward?
Mr. Thompson, I think Ed Tudor-Pole was the chap I saw most of as host. Ex-Sex Pistol, apparently.
Where have they stitched him up? I think it is telling that you should think so and I'd like to know an example.
But I agree that whether legal or bureaucratic, decisions are open to interpretation. All the same, the body whose primary job is to regulate the Single Market did decide that the tax deal wasn't fair.
The problem is while the short and medium term looks bleak, they don't look like going anywhere, so there is less pressure on Corbyn than there appears to be. Those who won't pretend they think he is ok now will mostly go quiet, or at least quieter than now, lest they face retaliation which would prevent a long term response, and they will just sit and hope for a chance. If not before 2020, then after 2020 if they lose heavily as they think.
Sure, that expectation there is a hope then might be incorrect, if they've given up the fight before then, but it is very clear (unless Smith springs a surprise) that the MPs and those who support them cannot beat Corbyn, that they won't support another party en masse, that creating a new one is too hard and too damaging to the brand they are loyal to despite Corbyn being in charge of it, and therefore that they will seek any excuse to not provoke further unless victory looks assured, they will try to play a long game, on the basis if they survive a thrashing in 2020 they can rebuild, but if they get completely ostracised now they cannot even do that.
Oops.
*I'll exclude Burnham 'cos I suspect even he doesn't know where he stands.
The current Commission will not be around forever. Juncker will be remembered as the man who lost the UK from the project - as well as for a number of other failiings.
The next Commission (which is likely to be the one to deal with the results of the first round of the real legal battle) will probably be very different - given the direction of travel in a lot of member states.
It is reasonable to report, is it not, that the man chosen by Corbyn to help launch his digital manifesto yesterday is an anti-Zionist conspiracist who has close connections to the Communist party and has defended the publication of books that praise paedophilia?
Surprisingly, Ed Tudor-Pole is the name he was born with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tudor-Pole
"Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well
or badly as leader of the Labour party"
Net results:
- GB adults -35
- Labour members before May 2015 (who haven't yet left) -36
- 2015 Labour voters -17
- Current Labour members/reg supporters +18, of which Corbyn supporters +89
It's a good name. Not as good as Morris Dancer, of course, but still.
On Tuesday, I wrote about their bid to defeat him in electoral open combat, better known as a leadership election. They have "unleashed hell" on him, "stabbing him in the front, back and sides", yet Mr Corbyn fights on. I even photoshopped him as Maximus from the film Gladiator for some reason. But it turns out that the election has been worse for them than they thought. A new poll shows that he's not entering the final few weeks battered and bruised; he's actually in even finer fettle than when he began."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-going-away-labour-moderates-must-decide-if-th/
Then again, I don't see much scope for a reduction. Ireland and Apple have broken the rules over state aid on an industrial scale, it's time for this to end. As I said yesterday, I'm OK with them lowering their headline rate of corporation tax to 1%, if they can make the sums work and they don't get themselves kicked out of the EU then that's up to them. What I'm not in favour of is them flagrantly breaking single market rules and then complaining about it afterwards. If they don't like the rules then the answer is leaving the EU.
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
Perhaps that is a show Mr Tennant is considering doing next...?
"Cookie"???
Mr. Topping, what are you suggesting?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-31/u-k-banks-eyeing-eu-market-may-find-equivalence-cold-comfort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cook
What political pressures there may be on either side however would be critical to it actually happening.
Think you could hack it on the #1 news source for political gossip and breaking news? We're hiring https://t.co/TTLFxXklYd
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-JK29LP-Durex-Dash-Button/dp/B01I29706W/ref=lp_10833773031_1_10?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1472640359&sr=1-10
Gonna flop, I recon.
I would love it if it turned out Paul Cook was a semi-regular contributor on here.
Beats are crap
But even further off-topic, the latest Rail magazine has an article about a discussion they had with Labour's transport secretary Andy McDonald. In it, he goes further into Labour's plans for renationalisation of the railways. Presented without comment:
*) Labour claims their plans will save money.
*) They will not nationalise ROSCOs, but will allow nationalised operator to commission trainsets without ROSCOs.
*) They will not nationalise freight or Open Access operators.
*) Vertical integration of track and trains under consideration (merging Network Rail and the operators)
*) 10% cut in regulated fares.
1) Am I a die hard Corbynista a la Abbott/Thornberry? If yes - no issue.
2) Am I going to retire anyway in 2020? If yes, no issue.
3) Can I wangle myself a safe parachute like mayor of somewhere or a job outside politics a la Burnham,( or the media somewhere)? If yes no problem.
4) Have I a big personal vote and think I can rely on the electorate in my constituency to ride out anything? ( Giesela Stuart? Frank Field?) In which case sit tight.
5) I am of independent means and don't care anyway financially and or I'm politically principled enough to fight the buggers and go down in flames (standing against them even?). In which case no problem.
6) I can face defecting. (But would you be honour bound to stand these days post Carswell and Reckless?)
How many is that though? Anybody got any thoughts?
Or: None of the above - I need the job, so I'll cave in support Jezza in a Damascene conversion and hunker down. It might not be very glorious the latter option, but I'm sure having a source of income plays on many minds for just the same reasons as the rest of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHnD201pOjk
Pennsylvania is Trump's weakest link in FOP.
If 0.7% was down to a milder winter, what's the other 2.7% caused by?
[edit] to be fair to Ma Beckett, the only reason I tagged her was because she admitted to being a moron for lending Corbyn her vote although she was not alone in doing so.
The best thing that can happen to Labour assuming a Corbyn win, is an early election and an utter and total pasting from the Tories. If we lose heavily under Corbyn it may bring some members (and crucially the unions) to their senses.
As you will be aware some of the POTUS primary performers in 08 and 12 were cr*p come the general election.
Having said that, a couple of decades ago a few of us secretly (**) installed some energy-saving software inside a piece of Consumer Electronics kit that was supposed to sell millions of units (*). Someone did a calculation that if all the units were in standby at the same time, that few lines of code would save the power of a small power station.
(*) Hahahahaha.
(**) Great configuration management there.
"Jew, Jew, Barney McJew, Cuth...I mean Zionist, Zionist, Barney McZionist, Cuthbert, Dibble & Grub!" https://t.co/FuzisqltWc
Or it will move to London.
https://twitter.com/business/status/770948140740509696
Under NAFTA, it is your competitors who bring a case that you have benefited from illegal state aid. So, if this case had happened under NAFTA (and Ireland was Canada), then Samsung (USA) Inc. would bring a case before the ISDS tribunal arguing that the preferential tax rates that Apple benefited from were state aid, and that they (Samsung) was disadvantaged relative to Apple by the difference in tax rates.
I have little doubt that the ISDS tribunal (which would fine Canada under this scenario) would find in favour of Samsung.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?