Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anticipating Corbyn’s second mandate
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anticipating Corbyn’s second mandate
Albert Einstein said that time travel into the past is impossible. He was, however, only talking physically. Politics does not necessarily obey the same laws; a fact he recognised when he turned down the presidency of Israel due people needing to be treated differently from ‘objective matters’.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/
Then look down the list of their number, to find the next one to have a go....
The WWC had their say in the referendum, class politics is not dead. Labour are irrelevant, because Labour has never been a socialist party until now , and no socialist party is likely to be elected anytime soon.
"President Barack Obama used a fake name while communicating with Hillary Clinton while she used a private email server during her time as US secretary of state, FBI documents released Friday revealed.
According to the documents, Huma Abedin, one of Clinton's aides, first noticed the former secretary of state's exchange with an unrecognized sender on June 28, 2012 that was later revealed to be Obama.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/obama-used-a-pseudonym-while-emailing-hillary-clinton-while-she-was-at-the-us-state-department-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence was once cautioned over a bust-up with her husband after hitting him with a framed painting
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html
15 of 24 shadow cab. ministers have failed to ask their opposite number any written questions since being in post. McDonnell hasn't asked 1. https://t.co/mEDEUMYNta
Unless the EU agreed that continuing membership on current terms was on the ballot paper. I cannot see either EU or UK agreeing to that.
1. Very hard Brexit, with no deal in place and all UK-EU arrangements reverting to WTO standards at best (that should be a floor for standards but the ill-will and national feeling that'd follow a rejected deal might push it even further down).
2. Further brief but intense negotiations, producing minimal face-saving change, which are then signed off by parliament. This'd be what I'd expect.
3. An extention to negotiations and more substantive talks. This'd require all 27 other states to agree and as such is pretty unlikely, not least because it's improbable that they'd want to spend so much more time negotiating (and nor, frankly, would the UK government come 2019).
4. Parliament ignores the referendum and signs the deal anyway as the only one available. Sorts the Brexit issue but kicks 5-10 points direct from Con to UKIP.
Three women have been shot dead and a man critically injured at a shopping centre in Burlington, Washington state.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37460461
Anyway, given the talk from the EU in recent weeks I doubt we'll get a deal much better than a hard brexit anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
A ballot of hard vs hard as nails Brexit less so.
Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?
She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...
Wikileaks
FBI dumps 189 pages of heavily redacted Clinton witness interviews under the cover of Friday evening #FBIFriday https://t.co/w4zA0IKBl5
Without that change, there's no point anyone challenging Corbyn because they'd lose. Besides, who is the White Knight? Labour ended up with Smith as alternative not least because of the paucity of talent available on their benches. Would Eagle have done better? Perhaps a little in retrospect: she probably wouldn't have made some of the more laddish errors that Smith did but she's still frankly lightweight.
There's also now the shadow cabinet catch-22 problem. If you serve, you're tainted by all the problems and policies of Corbyn; if you don't serve, you've broken trust with the membership and failed to show solidarity with the movement.
It's clear that the rebels never thought that Corbyn would refuse to go after losing a PLP VoNC by 4:1, and have been winging the strategy and tactics ever since. However, they'd be making a serious error to rejoin the shadow cabinet. Yes, it would be hugely divisive not to but that divide is already there and when Corbyn proves impossible to work with, what then? Resign again? For the same reason as last time? How much credibility would they expect to have after that?
"We got into a heated argument and he said, “If you want to leave you’ll have to leave with nothing.”
‘I told him if he was going to be unreasonable, then I would be too and grabbed a watercolour off the wall.
‘It had been given to us as a wedding present and painted by his great uncle Somervell, who attempted to climb Everest with [George] Mallory.
"I started walking out of the room and Graham made a lunge for me.
"The next thing I knew I was against the wall as he pushed the picture into my chest. I felt his grip relax and pushed back.
‘He grabbed the kitchen phone and called the police and said his wife was attacking him with a weapon.
‘I was terrified. That was the sum total of what happened."
Both husband and wife accepted cautions (and thereby their guilt).
For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
"But in 2016, Hillary seems to have tied herself too firmly to the Democrats’ more radical and shrunken base. At first, she didn’t get on too well with Black Lives Matter. Then she courted them. Now she regards not being denounced by the hard-Left as critical to her road to the White House.
She’s not looking for their enthusiastic endorsement. She just doesn’t want trouble. Her whole campaign, after all, is predicated upon being a rational alternative to Trump; a presence accompanied by calm rather than anger. Ironically, this unwillingness to speak means she has no substantive centre-ground. On economics, abortion, guns, policing and a long list of other issues, she’s all Left, Left and more Left.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/americans-dont-like-riots-clintons-silence-on-charlotte-is-a-lib/
As for your last comment; that's crass. I look forward to you suggesting that Harold Shipman should have been made head of the BMA, or Nick Leeson in charge of the Serious Fraud Office ...
Staying in the EEA without a referendum would be grist to the mill of the Bitter Enders who would cry betrayal immediately.
I was a Remainer, but am not keen on some version of soft Brexit that means we are subject to EU regulations without representation in the EU parliament and executive.
1) Incumbents are a different thing - I suspect they're more of an "are you happy with how things are going" whereas open seats are more "do you like this person"
2) Hillary's health may not hold up for long enough to run for a second term
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumptrain-reaches-30-million-changes-how-campaigns-use-internet/article/2602541
Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but it, and its causes, are often multifaceted. Its about time politicians and the media understood that and stopped making women 'victims' and men 'perpetrators', especially when the reverse is often true. Or, as in this case, seemingly both.
Though it should be said that there have been alleged cases where the woman has been beating a man, and the police arrest the man. You know, because they're obviously the cause.
CLASSIC: When Ian Holloway compared a win to being on the pull. Legend.
https://t.co/WE0aLCnvgy
Still, I'm hardly surprised it's a position you take.
The BBC2 coverage is between 11.00 and 13.00
2. Agreed. Kaine should make a better candidate.
Have we got an ETA on Jezza becoming king of all he survey's and Owen Who being to go back being, well... Owen Who?
This is vaguely reminiscent of when Nicias attempted to dissuade the Athenians from attempting the conquest of Syracuse by emphasising how much manpower it would take, diminishing their ability to prosecute the war with Sparta.
Athens then voted to put even more manpower into the Sicilian expedition, which ended up losing them the war.
Smith is Nicias, busily persuading his own side that the worst course of action is worth doubling down on.
Edited extra bit: shade unfair on Nicias, to be honest.
Right.
Have cleared all my morning chores to be able to witness this glorious moment in history!
If Jezza wins this with an increased mandate compared to last year they'll be able to hear me laughing in London!
Hopefully this is the first shots being fired in a campaign to get the iniquitous hate crime legislation repealed.
"Take, for example, the conference organiser’s headline claim: that hate crime has ‘risen 57 per cent since the EU referendum vote’.
This eye-catching figure has certainly done the rounds in recent months, regularly bandied about by liberal commentators, the BBC and Left-wing newspapers.
Yet dig into its provenance and things soon start to smell distinctly whiffy. For the ‘57 per cent’ number was actually plucked from a single press release issued by the National Police Chief’s Council on June 27, four days after the EU ballot took place.
The document in question specifically stated that police forces had recorded ‘no major spikes in tensions’ since Britain went to the polls.
However, its footnote added that 85 people had logged hate crime ‘incidents’ on True Vision, a website that records unverified allegations of such behaviour, during the four days in question, up from 54 during the corresponding period a month earlier.
What exactly did this mean? The police press release made things clear. ‘This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent but an increase in reporting through one mechanism’ over a single 96-hour period.
Fast forward three months, however, and the number was being used very differently.
As we have seen above, organisers of the....Conference were using it to allege that hate crime had risen by 57 per cent across Britain during the entire period since the Brexit vote.
This is demonstrably untrue.....
These people.... often owe their jobs, status and mortgages to the fashionable perception that hate crime is somehow spiralling out of control...
The Left has a supply-and-demand problem with bigotry: there isn’t enough to go around to support the apocalyptic world view they hold so dear."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Brexit-hate-crime-myth-claims-epidemic-race-crimes-referendum-simply-false.html
It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.
After all, who can tell when she will snap?
And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.
(The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
Given that everything else he has done has been marked by stupidity and brutishness, my guess is no.
As always, an interesting piece from David (for which, as always, many thanks).
Remembering David writes from a Conservative perspective, it's a curious piece given what has happened in his Party in the past 15 months. In May 2015, David Cameron won the first Conservative overall majority in an election in a generation. Yet now he is out of the leadership and out of politics.
To an outsider, it's been a display of unpleasant, ill-tempered ruthlessness predicated solely on the principle the Conservative Party wants to, indeed needs to, stay in Government. Now, there are plenty of people who will tell me Cameron was the architect of his own downfall and there's a lot of truth in that.
The irony of Cameron saying all through the Referendum he would stay on as PM whatever the result and then walking away on the Friday morning isn't lost on me. After all, Cameron had said 72 hours before the 2010 GE there would be no deals with the Liberal Democrats yet by the Friday afternoon, he was "willing to talk".
I think it's the ingratitude I don't get - even Nick Clegg, who you would think would be anathema to most LDs, is welcomed to the Conference and allowed to speak and plug his book - the leader who oversaw the decimation of the councillor base and the loss of 7/8 of the Party's MPs. If he'd been a Conservative, one suspects, he'd have been put in a cage and pelted with rotten fruit.
That then is the nature and question of the political party - do you stay in Opposition with a leader you like, support, want to work for etc or do you sit in Government with a leader you don't like, doing things you don't necessarily support, changing loyalties and opinions as often as an extremely fastidious man obsessed with his personal appearance changes his socks but having the luxury of power ?
In the end, is it like supporting a football club - my Party, right or left, right or wrong ? I've always said if I liked the policies of a Government, I didn't care what colour rosette it had. That's not true of course but does it work the other way. If the team with your rosette starts introducing policies you don't support, what then ?
"Of course it should be stressed that genuine hate crime is not to be tolerated. In Friday’s Mail, for example, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described being sent 25,000 abusive messages by members of her party’s Corbyn-supporting far Left, one of which referred to her as a ‘yid c***’.
The problem, however, comes when the definition of what constitutes a hate crime becomes risibly vague. After all, the subjective way in which the police (who increasingly resemble glorified social workers) now categorise such offences is hardly forensic.
Under their official guidance, hate crime is now deemed to be ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice.’
Proof of such intent is not necessarily required, the guidance adds: ‘Evidence of … hostility is not required … [The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor.’
In essence, this means that anyone, anywhere, can force officers to treat something as a hate crime. All it takes is a vague ‘perception’. Such rules are perverse and open to abuse. They mean that, in theory, a straight white male punched in a pub fight can falsely claim his assailant thought he was gay, and therefore motivated by homophobia.
Such an incident will duly be investigated as a hate crime, with the police and CPS under pressure to prosecute.
If they fail, the ‘victim’ can potentially claim to have suffered so-called ‘secondary victimisation’ in which the ‘hate’ he or she experienced is compounded by the police’s lack of sensitivity.....
Consider, in this context, the aforementioned police website True Vision. It allows anyone, anywhere in Britain, to report an incident, even if they were not the victim, have no idea of the victim’s identity, can provide no supporting evidence, and would prefer to remain anonymous.
Their claims then get logged as official statistics and, as we have seen above, used by ‘experts’ to draw sweeping conclusions (invariably negative) about the state of the nation.
Seldom has such a system been more open to abuse than in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, when Left-wing media outlets predicted a ‘surge of xenophobia’ and disheartened Remain voters attempted to prove them right. On Twitter, the hashtag #postbrexit racism went viral.
On Facebook, a forum called ‘worrying signs’ was established for ‘anyone dealing with post-Brexit fallout’ to post reports of hate crime. From here, users were directed to True Vision.
Unsurprisingly, many allegedly racist incidents they carried turned out to be anything but."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Brexit-hate-crime-myth-claims-epidemic-race-crimes-referendum-simply-false.html
Nevertheless thanks for the link and an amusing read!
Cameron's stock collapsed on the right because he not only divided his party but went on to scare-monger, didn't do any preparatory work [well, permit the Civil Service to do it] in case we voted Leave, had feeble arguments and belittled those who held a differing view. The bitterness came from Cameron.
Almost everyone here immediately recognised 'little Englanders' as offensive tosh (and stupid given most of the UK electorate is English).
In a few years, I imagine Cameron's Conservative stock will rise again due to his electoral achievements and granting a referendum in the first place.
Corbyn's side should be emphasising his fifty-odd percent last year and looking to contrast it against what's likely to be sixty-something this time. It doesn't matter that 'fifty-odd' was in fact 59.5%, or that had it gone to two-person-preferred, it'd have been well over sixty. The point is that it sounds a lot more.
By contrast, Owen Smith ought to be playing up that the best-placed opponent last time only won 19% and finished 40% behind Corbyn, so that as long as Corbyn doesn't top 70%, he can claim to have cut Corbyn's lead. He should also be pointing out the number of anti-Corbyn votes last time was 170k, which he's likely to comfortably exceed today.
From what I've seen so far, there's not been any expectation management from either side.