There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.
Why 2022?
Because there'll be a general election next year.
Has anything actually changed on the early election front?
It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.
An overzealous No 10, maybe.
We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.
Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.
It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.
And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?
You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default on.
After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.
Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?
Yep. That's the beauty of A50.
MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.
A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.
To my mind a referendum on a soft Brexit deal (e.g. the EEA) is to see off the Bitter Enders who want a Hard Brexit rather than to remain in the EU, which will not be an option.
Without this any Soft Brexit deal is going to be under siege from the cries of"betrayal" from the kippers and hard right of the Tories.
Any second referendum on controlling migration or ataying in the single market would see the hard Brexiteers win. May will therefore aim to control free movement first, probably with a job offer required to come to the UK, then try and get a free trade deal of some form if the EU are willing to cooperate
It's done wonders to revive Flowers book sales, dragged up all the old juicy morsels/video clips of Bill lying on 60 Minutes, Hillary calling other women a 'bimbo eruption'... even Juanita Broderick has tweeted her rape claim trauma and she's now 73. For anyone too young to recall this gossipfest - it's an education.
Oh my, I'd forgotten all about the "bimbo eruption" remarks. For a candidate whose central campaign plank appears to be the whole glass ceiling smashing/sisterhood thing, it's not a good look.
I'd forgotten about Linda Tripp too
"But according to the woman who outed Monica Lewinsky as the president's mistress, the real story was never about Monica. It was about 'subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice… a true abuse of power.' And it was about Hillary.
Because, according to Linda Tripp, it was Hillary who manipulated and stage managed the story, converting herself from a lackluster First Lady with unimpressive approval ratings to admirable First Victim - the blindsided wife standing by her man. She made him forgivable. She 'orchestrated the cover up' and she made damn sure that she moved on. Nothing, and no-one, was going to stand in her way.
Linda Tripp, whose recorded conversations with Lewinsky - submitted to independent counsel Kenneth Starr - exposed the truth of the affair that both Lewinsky and Clinton had sought to deny, has never spoken fully until now.
"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."
Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?
The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.
It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).
If JC pops his clogs ('heartbeat away' etc) then the acting leader is a 'moderate' ( ie the fatman) and the next elex will no doubt be held at a time he is happy with.
It comes to something when Labour's best chance of survival as a party of Government is for the leader to unexpectedly die before he can complete his takeover of the party machinery.
It's always possible, of course, but highly unlikely. Corbyn is 67, but he's also a bicycling, teetotal vegetarian with a life full of purpose - exactly the sort of budding septuagenarian whom one would most expect to live to a ripe old age. And he's only got to last long enough to capture 3 or 4 more seats on the NEC, or for the moderates to be deselected and a new wave of radicals to be returned to the Commons in 2020.
I think we are reasonably safe to assume that pre-2015 Labour is a dead parrot.
If only Labour had a giant tombstone they could use to mark the event...
Playing devil's advocate re: Article 50 - the EU is not really that bothered about obeying its own laws, as we saw when Greece was bailed out despite the unambiguous no bail-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty. What's to stop them saying we can have a referendum on any deal and remain full members if it's rejected, rather than the hard Brexit that A50 may imply?
Politically the rEU may decide we're not worth the bother, but I don't think they'd let their own laws get in the way if they did want to hang on to us.
The EU could probably fudge an extension to the two year deadline if they wished, but any second referendum, where we could vote to remain in, would have to come from the British government.
I'm not sure Theresa would last five minutes in the job if she proposed that, we'd have PM Gove in no time at all.
A second referendum could easily be sold by PM May to the party, provided there was something substantive on offer. She'd have cross-party support in parliament and would almost certainly have the Leaver-in-Chief onside -- that's Boris, btw -- which would bring over the softer Brexiteers on the backbenches. Considering Theresa May's age, she could also throw in hints of retirement once the whole thing is settled.
If the eu made a substantial new offer, I for one am open to bring persuaded - it was a tough decision, and the critical factor in voting keave for me was we had a bad offer from them and the Eu seemed incapable of change. Theoretically I could consider a new offer and it woukd theoretically be a change in circumstance to justify a halt. But it would have to be a very good offer and it's not really in the EUs interest to do that - the message would be for everyone to vote to leave to get a good deal, blackmail essentially - without an economic catastrophe public opinion will not make a change in direction politically viable and we'll have triggered a60 long before then if it even hsppens, and while a fudge to extend or withdraw the a50 period may be possible, it is even more politically difficult for everyone to achieve at that point.
We're leaving, it's just too hard to stop it now even if it were to be shown to be a mistake.
Also, I really can't see May going for a second referendum. She was never that bothered about the EU one way or the other and wouldn't want to alienate the bulk of her party. It would have to be someone other than her in No. 10 and that's not going to happen.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
You need 10 million votes to win a GE.. 10 million are not going to vote Labour.. it just aint gonna happen. No shit has really been thrown at Corbyn.. wait till a GE.. People will not vote for a loon. They may not vote for May but there will likely be lots of abstentions or defections to LD, and no amount of activists will change that.
Mr. Recidivist, worth noting Ed Miliband wanted four million conversations with British voters. If you're selling rubbish, people won't buy. Unilateralism, being friends with Hamas, open borders are not attractive propositions.
Dignity in Dying Heading to #labconf16 for our fringe event today. 1pm at Hilton City Centre. Please come to discuss an exciting year for end of life choice.
Bulk discounts available for all bookings made with Dignitas before 2020, including FREE one-way flights to Switzerland! Read glowing testimonials from: Ms Y Cooper, Ms L Kendall, Mr T Hunt, Ms A Eagle, and many, many more!
Further information available from Momentum Travel Experiences, Stall AC23, Main Hall.
The Tube isn't perfect, but it's much better than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20, and it's also much better than most places have.
As I'm a South Londoner, I was really talking about the train more than the Tube (only a couple of tendrils of which penetrate down here).
Even setting aside the woes of "Southern", it's often pretty dire. And while they may not be able to do much about mechanical failure or crew shortages when they happen, the sheer lack of communication is something else. One recent example - a last-minute platform alteration at Clapham Junction. Passengers dutifully troop across to the new platform as soon as it's announced - only to see the train already pulling away. That kind of thing just shouldn't happen.
The trains have also improved massively in the last 20 years although they have further to go. Of course, if NIMBY complaints hadn't delayed Thameslink 2000 to the point where it's still going on, things would be much better.
And people want to make the identical mistake with HS2, God save us.
To my mind a referendum on a soft Brexit deal (e.g. the EEA) is to see off the Bitter Enders who want a Hard Brexit rather than to remain in the EU, which will not be an option.
Without this any Soft Brexit deal is going to be under siege from the cries of"betrayal" from the kippers and hard right of the Tories.
Any second referendum on controlling migration or ataying in the single market would see the hard Brexiteers win. [snip]
I don't see why that is necessarily true. The vote wouldn't be restricted to those who voted "out". And even for a sizeable number of them their motivation was not immigration. Arguing, perfectly legitimately, that concern about immigration was a major driving force behind the vote to leave the EU is not the same as assuming that controlling immigration is the primary majority concern in the country.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
How many of the new members are active participants though? And how many of those are active in an outward sense as opposed to spending their time getting involved in internal battles?
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
Hmmm... some on the Far Left (I wouldn't say a majority though: most people aren't thick or blinkered, and they know that their prospectus can't carry enough votes in the country) commit what John Harris recently christened the John Peel mistake. A term which, if there's any justice, will be entering the vernacular at some point over the next couple of years. And I quote...
"Now, support for Labour has dropped another couple of percentage points towards the dreaded mid-20s. Those mass rallies by which Jeremy Corbyn sets such store could be the first stirrings of a social movement, some of which may play a part in an eventual left renaissance. But for now, they say nothing about Labour and the left’s basic predicament. (In its own way, in fact, the idea that they augur well for Corbyn’s electoral prospects is reminiscent of what I call the John Peel mistake. Circa 1969, the DJ wondered why one of his favourite albums was not in the charts: “Everyone I know’s got a copy,” he said. Back came the reply: “No – you know everyone who’s got a copy.”)"
It is no wonder that an electrified, politically enthused Far Left can outmuscle the more pragmatic and practical Tory Party membership in terms of sheer weight of numbers, but selling the same prospectus to a deeply sceptical electorate is a different thing entirely. In a General Election contest, where the average voter is looking for managerial competence and a platform and set of values that most closely conform to their own opinions and prejudices, the Conservative Party is a country mile ahead - and, against Corbyn Labour, it will continue to be so.
The Tube isn't perfect, but it's much better than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20, and it's also much better than most places have.
As I'm a South Londoner, I was really talking about the train more than the Tube (only a couple of tendrils of which penetrate down here).
Even setting aside the woes of "Southern", it's often pretty dire. And while they may not be able to do much about mechanical failure or crew shortages when they happen, the sheer lack of communication is something else. One recent example - a last-minute platform alteration at Clapham Junction. Passengers dutifully troop across to the new platform as soon as it's announced - only to see the train already pulling away. That kind of thing just shouldn't happen.
The trains have also improved massively in the last 20 years although they have further to go. Of course, if NIMBY complaints hadn't delayed Thameslink 2000 to the point where it's still going on, things would be much better.
And people want to make the identical mistake with HS2, God save us.
I visited the South East route control centre about 18 months ago and one of the people there reckoned that the Thameslink upgrade was delayed, in part, because the focus was on HS1.
There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.
Why 2022?
Because there'll be a general election next year.
Has anything actually changed on the early election front?
It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.
An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.
We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.
Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.
It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.
And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?
You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.
After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.
That argument relies on exactly the same logic, so often mocked by remainers, that because Europe has more trade to lose, they will act rationally. I though the line was that they are looking to cut their nose off pour encourager les autres?
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
votes were counted.
Hmmm... some on the Far Left (I wouldn't say a majority though: most people aren't thick or blinkered, and they know that their prospectus can't carry enough votes in the country) commit what John Harris recently christened the John Peel mistake. A term which, if there's any justice, will be entering the vernacular at some point over the next couple of years. And I quote...
"Now, support for Labour has dropped another couple of percentage points towards the dreaded mid-20s. Those mass rallies by which Jeremy Corbyn sets such store could be the first stirrings of a social movement, some of which may play a part in an eventual left renaissance. But for now, they say nothing about Labour and the left’s basic predicament. (In its own way, in fact, the idea that they augur well for Corbyn’s electoral prospects is reminiscent of what I call the John Peel mistake. Circa 1969, the DJ wondered why one of his favourite albums was not in the charts: “Everyone I know’s got a copy,” he said. Back came the reply: “No – you know everyone who’s got a copy.”)"
It is no wonder that an electrified, politically enthused Far Left can outmuscle the more pragmatic and practical Tory Party membership in terms of sheer weight of numbers, but selling the same prospectus to a deeply sceptical electorate is a different thing entirely. In a General Election contest, where the average voter is looking for managerial competence and a platform and set of values that most closely conform to their own opinions and prejudices, the Conservative Party is a country mile ahead - and, against Corbyn Labour, it will continue to be so.
JC has been elected by Trotskyists. Long-standing Labourites didn't vote for him.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. ... Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
Hmmm... some on the Far Left (I wouldn't say a majority though: most people aren't thick or blinkered, and they know that their prospectus can't carry enough votes in the country) commit what John Harris recently christened the John Peel mistake. A term which, if there's any justice, will be entering the vernacular at some point over the next couple of years. And I quote...
"Now, support for Labour has dropped another couple of percentage points towards the dreaded mid-20s. Those mass rallies by which Jeremy Corbyn sets such store could be the first stirrings of a social movement, some of which may play a part in an eventual left renaissance. But for now, they say nothing about Labour and the left’s basic predicament. (In its own way, in fact, the idea that they augur well for Corbyn’s electoral prospects is reminiscent of what I call the John Peel mistake. Circa 1969, the DJ wondered why one of his favourite albums was not in the charts: “Everyone I know’s got a copy,” he said. Back came the reply: “No – you know everyone who’s got a copy.”)"
It is no wonder that an electrified, politically enthused Far Left can outmuscle the more pragmatic and practical Tory Party membership in terms of sheer weight of numbers, but selling the same prospectus to a deeply sceptical electorate is a different thing entirely. In a General Election contest, where the average voter is looking for managerial competence and a platform and set of values that most closely conform to their own opinions and prejudices, the Conservative Party is a country mile ahead - and, against Corbyn Labour, it will continue to be so.
I like that John Peel analogy.
300,000 people have just voted for Jeremy Corbyn. That's 3% of the 10,000,000 people who need to vote for him in a general election. What's his plan for attracting the 9,700,000 new voters he needs to win, rather than speak only to the 300,000 he has in the bag already?
To my mind a referendum on a soft Brexit deal (e.g. the EEA) is to see off the Bitter Enders who want a Hard Brexit rather than to remain in the EU, which will not be an option.
Without this any Soft Brexit deal is going to be under siege from the cries of"betrayal" from the kippers and hard right of the Tories.
Any second referendum on controlling migration or ataying in the single market would see the hard Brexiteers win. [snip]
I don't see why that is necessarily true. The vote wouldn't be restricted to those who voted "out". And even for a sizeable number of them their motivation was not immigration. Arguing, perfectly legitimately, that concern about immigration was a major driving force behind the vote to leave the EU is not the same as assuming that controlling immigration is the primary majority concern in the country.
Polling shows that voters back controlling immigration over getting access to the single market by 52% to 28%, only LDs and Greens prioritise staying in the single market, UKIP, Tory, Labour and SNP voters back controlling immigration first https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/772705722073280512
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
votes were counted.
Hmmo.
JC has been elected by Trotskyists. Long-standing Labourites didn't vote for him.
Wow, we have a lot more Trotskyists in this country than I realised.
Bradley Wiggins on Marr said although he backs Corbyn (although not agreeing with everything he has done) 'Theresa has done a fantastic job of stabilising the country' since the events of the summer
Hillary's Pennsylvania lead now matches her national lead, it is back to being the key swing state. The debate tomorrow is now crucial
I think the debates were always crucial. There's a lot of voters wondering if they can really stomach voting for their natural choice. A lot of voters wondering if the other option really is the devil incarnate.
Outside of George W. Bush getting re-elected, the last time I can remember the Trump level of "Eeeeeew!" from the UK at the prospect of a candidate getting elected - and a sense of dread once it happened - was Reagan in 1980. And that didn't turn out so bad.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
The Tories had their biggest rise in membership under Hague, parties' membership is often highest when they are most ideological as ideologues are more willing to join
''JC has been elected by Trotskyists. Long-standing Labourites didn't vote for him. ''
this to me is the real problem. What happens when it comes to the nitty gritty of policy? The party can talk about unity all it likes, but what will Chukka and co. do when the party formulates a hard left policy platform? I guess many labour voters would simply abstain, but its much more difficult for the party's senio representatives.
Mr, kle4, lots of people like the certainty of the zealous. It's also why Muslim conversion over the last decade has been quite high (not sure if that's dropped off).
However, it can be very off-putting to those outside the One True Faith.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
Assuming 30m or so people vote, there are surely 5-6m who favour a radical left wing party.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
Assuming 30m or so people vote, there are surely 5-6m who favour a radical left wing party.
Indeed but even Foot's Labour Party got 8 million votes in 1983
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
Assuming 30m or so people vote, there are surely 5-6m who favour a radical left wing party.
Indeed but even Foot's Labour Party got 8 million votes in 1983
You add in a few 'my party at all costs' types. High floor for Labour.
Hillary's Pennsylvania lead now matches her national lead, it is back to being the key swing state. The debate tomorrow is now crucial
I think the debates were always crucial. There's a lot of voters wondering if they can really stomach voting for their natural choice. A lot of voters wondering if the other option really is the devil incarnate.
Outside of George W. Bush getting re-elected, the last time I can remember the Trump level of "Eeeeeew!" from the UK at the prospect of a candidate getting elected - and a sense of dread once it happened - was Reagan in 1980. And that didn't turn out so bad.
Yes, record viewing figures are expected for tomorrow. Reagan was not the same as Trump, Thatcherites loved Reagan for starters, they do not love Trump and of course Blair backed George W Bush over Kerry in 2004, he now backs Hillary. The only people in the UK who like Trump are Kippers but the anti migration mood which won the referendum for Brexit is the same force driving Trump, so Brits cannot take the high moral ground if Trump wins as they might have done over George W Bush as any liberal American can justifiably say 'well you started it when you voted to leave the EU!'
It's done wonders to revive Flowers book sales, dragged up all the old juicy morsels/video clips of Bill lying on 60 Minutes, Hillary calling other women a 'bimbo eruption'... even Juanita Broderick has tweeted her rape claim trauma and she's now 73. For anyone too young to recall this gossipfest - it's an education.
Oh my, I'd forgotten all about the "bimbo eruption" remarks. For a candidate whose central campaign plank appears to be the whole glass ceiling smashing/sisterhood thing, it's not a good look.
I think even the sisterhood would accept that a woman cuckolded by a former centrefold could legitimately describe Flowers as a bimbo. Indeed it may well be the truest remark that Hillary has ever made!
If they won't call a "sex worker" a tart I don't think "bimbo" would be acceptable either.
The lefties are in the safer Labour seats, and the more seats Labour loses, the fewer nominations McDonnell or whoever would need to get on the ballot to replace Corbyn #justsaying
But see where American power stands today. Russia, Assad, Iran and Hezbollah break the Syrian ceasefire. They bomb aid convoys and turn Aleppo into a 21th-century Dresden. Barack Obama and John Kerry do not look like imperious masters of a unipolar world now. They look like what they are: impotent and humiliated has-beens. Russia can do what it wishes in the Middle East. However loudly America complains it has no option but to tag along.
Hillary's Pennsylvania lead now matches her national lead, it is back to being the key swing state. The debate tomorrow is now crucial
I think the debates were always crucial. There's a lot of voters wondering if they can really stomach voting for their natural choice. A lot of voters wondering if the other option really is the devil incarnate.
Outside of George W. Bush getting re-elected, the last time I can remember the Trump level of "Eeeeeew!" from the UK at the prospect of a candidate getting elected - and a sense of dread once it happened - was Reagan in 1980. And that didn't turn out so bad.
IIRC Independents are breaking for Trump - TBH, there's so many polls - I'm going snowblind.
A few overnight show significant swings to Trump. Check end of last thread.
The Tube isn't perfect, but it's much better than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20, and it's also much better than most places have.
As I'm a South Londoner, I was really talking about the train more than the Tube (only a couple of tendrils of which penetrate down here).
Even setting aside the woes of "Southern", it's often pretty dire. And while they may not be able to do much about mechanical failure or crew shortages when they happen, the sheer lack of communication is something else. One recent example - a last-minute platform alteration at Clapham Junction. Passengers dutifully troop across to the new platform as soon as it's announced - only to see the train already pulling away. That kind of thing just shouldn't happen.
The trains have also improved massively in the last 20 years although they have further to go. Of course, if NIMBY complaints hadn't delayed Thameslink 2000 to the point where it's still going on, things would be much better.
And people want to make the identical mistake with HS2, God save us.
I visited the South East route control centre about 18 months ago and one of the people there reckoned that the Thameslink upgrade was delayed, in part, because the focus was on HS1.
Perhaps a little, but HS1/CTRL was authorised by Parliament in 1996, by when TL2k should have been nearing completion.
I remember nonsense about 1992 when lots of articles were published explaining that the UK had been moved into a 1 party state like Japan (which was rather more of a compliment in those days) and how investors no longer needed to worry about "democratic risk". All turned out to be complete tosh of course.
Nature abhors a vacuum and the people need a choice. It doesn't have to be Labour but they are very much in pole position and are going to be very hard to shift.
Playing devil's advocate re: Article 50 - the EU is not really that bothered about obeying its own laws, as we saw when Greece was bailed out despite the unambiguous no bail-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty. What's to stop them saying we can have a referendum on any deal and remain full members if it's rejected, rather than the hard Brexit that A50 may imply?
Politically the rEU may decide we're not worth the bother, but I don't think they'd let their own laws get in the way if they did want to hang on to us.
Which clause of the Maastricht treaty do you think was breached by the Greek bail out?
Bradley Wiggins on Marr said although he backs Corbyn (although not agreeing with everything he has done) 'Theresa has done a fantastic job of stabilising the country' since the events of the summer
The Tube isn't perfect, but it's much better than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20, and it's also much better than most places have.
As I'm a South Londoner, I was really talking about the train more than the Tube (only a couple of tendrils of which penetrate down here).
Even setting aside the woes of "Southern", it's often pretty dire. And while they may not be able to do much about mechanical failure or crew shortages when they happen, the sheer lack of communication is something else. One recent example - a last-minute platform alteration at Clapham Junction. Passengers dutifully troop across to the new platform as soon as it's announced - only to see the train already pulling away. That kind of thing just shouldn't happen.
The trains have also improved massively in the last 20 years although they have further to go. Of course, if NIMBY complaints hadn't delayed Thameslink 2000 to the point where it's still going on, things would be much better.
And people want to make the identical mistake with HS2, God save us.
I visited the South East route control centre about 18 months ago and one of the people there reckoned that the Thameslink upgrade was delayed, in part, because the focus was on HS1.
Perhaps a little, but HS1/CTRL was authorised by Parliament in 1996, by when TL2k should have been nearing completion.
Ah, so it pre-dates Prescott. It'll certainly make a difference once it's completed, but I don't think it's the silver bullet to solve the railway's problem unfortunately.
Bradley Wiggins on Marr said although he backs Corbyn (although not agreeing with everything he has done) 'Theresa has done a fantastic job of stabilising the country' since the events of the summer
Isn't he a Labour man?
Yes but he clearly likes May more than he did Cameron
On that poll UKIP are now closer to Labour (12 points behind) than Labour are to the Tories (15 points behind). 26% for Corbyn Labour is 2% worse than the 28% Foot got in 1983
Dr. Foxinsox, point of order: can women be cuckolded? I thought it only applied to men. [Not that I'm an expert in the field].
I'm wondering if there's a rarely used but feminine version of the term.
Wiki tells me that "The female equivalent cuckquean first appears in English literature in 1562"
I thought cuckholded meant that the wife had another man's child and passed it off as her husband's?
Chelsea is clearly Bill's kid. In the same flattering way that Beatrice/Eugenie is Andrew's
John McCain made an absolutely foul joke about Chelsea's parentage.
Cuckhold - husband of an adulteress/ man who brings up another's child. Cuckquean - wife of an adulterer Wittol - a husband of an adulteress who knows and permits/ encourages it.
Hillary's Pennsylvania lead now matches her national lead, it is back to being the key swing state. The debate tomorrow is now crucial
I think the debates were always crucial. There's a lot of voters wondering if they can really stomach voting for their natural choice. A lot of voters wondering if the other option really is the devil incarnate.
Outside of George W. Bush getting re-elected, the last time I can remember the Trump level of "Eeeeeew!" from the UK at the prospect of a candidate getting elected - and a sense of dread once it happened - was Reagan in 1980. And that didn't turn out so bad.
IIRC Independents are breaking for Trump - TBH, there's so many polls - I'm going snowblind.
A few overnight show significant swings to Trump. Check end of last thread.
Mr. Rook, it's the antithesis of UKIP's problem. Labour may have deep support, but an inch wide.
UKIP's broad but shallow approach has been rubbish for years but if they breach the dam they'll get a flood of seats. We'll see how James does.
It's not impossible that Ukip could yet do widespread damage to Labour in any of those poorer, traditional heartland areas where Labour doesn't have a big human shield of non-white voters to protect itself - am thinking in particular of the North-East, South Wales and parts of Yorkshire. But I think after last year's performance we have to be sceptical - as you correctly point out, Ukip can attract a lot of votes in total but they're too evenly distributed to be useful, and it is in fact a long way behind the incumbent in practically every seat where it is the main challenger.
Looking at the Anthony Wells list of estimated results under the new boundaries, Ukip retain (just) the advantage in Harwich and Clacton, are 900 votes short of the Tories in Thanet East (although it's unknowable how much of that could be down to the Farage effect,) and are competitive in a couple of other three way marginals: Thurrock (1,000 votes behind the winner,) and Stoke on Trent North (4,000 votes adrift.) After that, they are about 6,000 votes (12% or so) adrift of the Tories in Boston & Skegness, and of Labour in Dagenham & Rainham, below which things get substantially tougher. Thus, the number of seats in which Ukip appear quite competitive is tiny, and only two of those are notionally held by Labour.
We'll have to see how effective James is, firstly at holding her party together and continuing to keep it prominent in the national conversation post-Brexit, and secondly at trying to target the Labour heartland rather than holding on to modest numbers of voters all over the country, to no useful effect. My hunch at this stage has to be that, even if Ukip really gets its act together, this is a project for two Parliaments: to wear down Labour's majorities in the target seats and turn them into winnable marginals for next time around. At this stage, the main threat that Ukip votes pose to Labour would appear to be (a) forcing the party to devote resources to shoring up previously neglected safe seats, i.e. opening another front on which it has to defend itself; and (b) the likelihood that many professed Ukip voters will cast tactical ballots against Labour, to help out the Tories in Con-Lab marginals.
Dr. Foxinsox, point of order: can women be cuckolded? I thought it only applied to men. [Not that I'm an expert in the field].
I'm wondering if there's a rarely used but feminine version of the term.
Wiki tells me that "The female equivalent cuckquean first appears in English literature in 1562"
I thought cuckholded meant that the wife had another man's child and passed it off as her husband's?
Chelsea is clearly Bill's kid. In the same flattering way that Beatrice/Eugenie is Andrew's
John McCain made an absolutely foul joke about Chelsea's parentage.
Do tell !
(per Google) Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno. I will leave you to google the explanation. I have and I still don't really get it.
I remember nonsense about 1992 when lots of articles were published explaining that the UK had been moved into a 1 party state like Japan (which was rather more of a compliment in those days) and how investors no longer needed to worry about "democratic risk". All turned out to be complete tosh of course.
Nature abhors a vacuum and the people need a choice. It doesn't have to be Labour but they are very much in pole position and are going to be very hard to shift.
I remember the DT saying that back then, and referring to Thatcher as Premier too. Most peculiar commentary. It really was the Torygraph then.
The Times post Brexit is very tediously Remain and liberal left about everything. Very disappointing and unimaginative reading most days.
I know the polls are dire for Labour and Corbyn's personal ones are even worse. This isn't a rhetorical trick or a debating point. But how do you explain the huge size of the supposedly moribund and soon to be extinct Labour Party? Over half a million people voted in the leadership election. Even if all the Owen Smith supporters left Labour would still be comfortably the biggest party in the UK. If all Owen Smith's supporters formed their own party it would be the second biggest. Even a pressure group like Momentum has more members than people voted in the UKIP leadership election.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
Assuming 30m or so people vote, there are surely 5-6m who favour a radical left wing party.
Indeed but even Foot's Labour Party got 8 million votes in 1983
You add in a few 'my party at all costs' types. High floor for Labour.
High floor? Hmm, the 26% Labour are on today with ICM would be their lowest voteshare at a general election since the 21% they got in 1918!
People pinning their hopes on the obstructive nature of Blairite Tory MPs to force a second EU vote should see how that kind of thinking worked in Labour.
The mushy centre is not where the public are, nor the memberships.
''JC has been elected by Trotskyists. Long-standing Labourites didn't vote for him. ''
this to me is the real problem. What happens when it comes to the nitty gritty of policy? The party can talk about unity all it likes, but what will Chukka and co. do when the party formulates a hard left policy platform? I guess many labour voters would simply abstain, but its much more difficult for the party's senio representatives.
Well of course, they are going to be forced either into a campaign of attritional rebellion against the leadership by their consciences, or they are going to have to lie, lie and lie again: to pretend in the most pathetic and obvious way that they believe that Labour's platform and leader alike are sensible, are good options for the country, and are electable. If they do the former then open warfare continues, if they do the latter then they will be called out as liars and fools.
There are no good options left for moderates in Labour, but it seems that they are terrified of initiating a split because the likelihood is that it would lead to wholesale electoral slaughter, and there's no guarantee by any means that Corbyn's rump party - which would presumably retain control of the hugely valuable Labour brand - wouldn't emerge post-2020 as much the stronger of the two factions. Thus, those occupying a share of the 170 or so Labour safe seats liable to be held even in the event of a crushing defeat are hunkering down and preparing to fight possible de-selection, whilst the MPs in the marginals... well, I don't know, examining their future career options I suppose.
Mr. Rook, it's the antithesis of UKIP's problem. Labour may have deep support, but an inch wide.
UKIP's broad but shallow approach has been rubbish for years but if they breach the dam they'll get a flood of seats. We'll see how James does.
It's not impossible that Ukip could yet do widespread damage to Labour in any of those poorer, traditional heartland areas where Labour doesn't have a big human shield of non-white voters to protect itself - am thinking in particular of the North-East, South Wales and parts of Yorkshire. But I think after last year's performance we have to be sceptical - as you correctly point out, Ukip can attract a lot of votes in total but they're too evenly distributed to be useful, and it is in fact a long way behind the incumbent in practically every seat where it is the main challenger.
Looking at the Anthony Wells list of estimated results under the new boundaries, Ukip retain (just) the advantage in Harwich and Clacton, are 900 votes short of the Tories in Thanet East (although it's unknowable how much of that could be down to the Farage effect,) and are competitive in a couple of other three way marginals: Thurrock (1,000 votes behind the winner,) and Stoke on Trent North (4,000 votes adrift.) After that, they are about 6,000 votes (12% or so) adrift of the Tories in Boston & Skegness, and of Labour in Dagenham & Rainham, below which things get substantially tougher. Thus, the number of seats in which Ukip appear quite competitive is tiny, and only two of those are notionally held by Labour.
We'll have to see how effective James is, firstly at holding her party together and continuing to keep it prominent in the national conversation post-Brexit, and secondly at trying to target the Labour heartland rather than holding on to modest numbers of voters all over the country, to no useful effect. My hunch at this stage has to be that, even if Ukip really gets its act together, this is a project for two Parliaments: to wear down Labour's majorities in the target seats and turn them into winnable marginals for next time around. At this stage, the main threat that Ukip votes pose to Labour would appear to be (a) forcing the party to devote resources to shoring up previously neglected safe seats, i.e. opening another front on which it has to defend itself; and (b) the likelihood that many professed Ukip voters will cast tactical ballots against Labour, to help out the Tories in Con-Lab marginals.
I think the worst damage UKIP does to Labour is to shut them out of North Kent and the Thames Estuary, and several other working class marginals like Stevenage, and Nuneaton.
If I were forced at gunpoint to bet on this market, I'd go for the 9/4 on 2021/25. But it isn't a market I'll be playing.
Why would anybody in their right mind be playing this market, particularly with these odds? I don't get it, is the market there mostly for publicity, or there for the mugs?
Even if you thought 2031+ was a certainty because a time-traveller from the future had shown you conclusive proof (and this was the sole thing you knew about the future) there are more boring places to stick your money that should out-return this market.
I remember nonsense about 1992 when lots of articles were published explaining that the UK had been moved into a 1 party state like Japan (which was rather more of a compliment in those days) and how investors no longer needed to worry about "democratic risk". All turned out to be complete tosh of course.
Nature abhors a vacuum and the people need a choice. It doesn't have to be Labour but they are very much in pole position and are going to be very hard to shift.
I remember the same thing ever since 1979. People used to say "there is no effective opposition except the press". They have stopped saying that so I suppose things are even worse than before.
She's a prominent figure for distressed, Corbyn-sceptic (and Europhile) progressives to cling to; she's obviously both an intelligent woman and not a Far Leftist; and a lot of English left-liberals who are otherwise internationalist and very suspicious of nationalism have this blind spot for the SNP, which they think is well-aligned with their own values and altogether rather lovely. Thus, I don't find this figure especially surprising.
She's a prominent figure for distressed, Corbyn-sceptic (and Europhile) progressives to cling to; she's obviously both an intelligent woman and not a Far Leftist; and a lot of English left-liberals who are otherwise internationalist and very suspicious of nationalism have this blind spot for the SNP, which they think is well-aligned with their own values and altogether rather lovely. Thus, I don't find this figure especially surprising.
The SNP is very clearly aligned with the world outlook of the middle class centre left (as opposed to hard left).
So ICM have Labour dropping to 26%... that could easily be and probably actually is 23%.
There are plenty (probably close to a majority) of UK voters who would never vote Tory. So these low Labour vote scenarios need to posit other parties for whom many such people will vote (which of course largely explains why Labour isn't polling even worse).
In a similar vein, imagine - just for the purposes of debate - a scenario for 2020 where Brexit is very obviously turning out badly for the UK, and the population is mightily unhappy about it. The current party leaders are all in post. What's the result of the GE?
Boris Johnson, now Foreign Secretary, reassured Cameron in a secret text that Brexit would be 'crushed' – nine minutes before putting himself at the head of the Leave campaign.
I think, as much as the Remainians are temporarily confused and demoralised, that the Brexiters really don't have as much power as they might like either. They remain a minority in the parliamentary party, if not in Cabinet, and their factional leader is an obvious chancer.
Important when thinking about the push and pull of Brexit over the next six months.
(I take the general view that Labour is irrelevant at least until Corbyn goes, that UKIP's fox has been shot, and the LDs - whatever their success in council by-elections - will be largely ignored.
Politics therefore becomes all about the battle within the Tory party, with May dependent on keeping the Osborne wing and the Johnson wing onside in the short-term.
Once the bones of an agreement is forged with the EU, logic then dictates a general election in order to get a proper majority. This would have the pleasing, secondary effect of delivering an implicit mandate for the Brexit agreement. I agree therefore we are likely to see an election in 2017).
If I were forced at gunpoint to bet on this market, I'd go for the 9/4 on 2021/25. But it isn't a market I'll be playing.
Why would anybody in their right mind be playing this market, particularly with these odds? I don't get it, is the market there mostly for publicity, or there for the mugs?
Even if you thought 2031+ was a certainty because a time-traveller from the future had shown you conclusive proof (and this was the sole thing you knew about the future) there are more boring places to stick your money that should out-return this market.
99.3 per cent of political betting markets are there for the publicity, by providing cheap hooks for lazy journalists to hang speculative stories and opinion pieces on. Our job is to profit from the bookmakers' natural desire to get their names in the paper.
I remember nonsense about 1992 when lots of articles were published explaining that the UK had been moved into a 1 party state like Japan (which was rather more of a compliment in those days) and how investors no longer needed to worry about "democratic risk". All turned out to be complete tosh of course.
Nature abhors a vacuum and the people need a choice. It doesn't have to be Labour but they are very much in pole position and are going to be very hard to shift.
I remember the same thing ever since 1979. People used to say "there is no effective opposition except the press". They have stopped saying that so I suppose things are even worse than before.
Interestingly, D Trump Jnr said earlier today that he expects the press [who hates his dad] to hold him to account from being too wacky. He was really rather persuasive here - he said the Establishment detested him, the liberal media did, Congress and Senate would reign him in - so what's to worry about?
An interesting tactic! I suspect it may work. At least he's challenging the system - even if the system will fight against him.
Jim Pickard Corbyn unsure about extra resources for MI6 to tackle jihadis: "I don't necessarily think that's particularly necessary." #marr
Corbyn is a prat for lumbering into a clearly signposted elephant trap but of course, he is probably in complete agreement with the government which would otherwise have already provided these extra resources.
@WikiGuido: So far today Labour has backed a probe into British troops, opposed a larger MI6 & defended calling for a woman to be lynched. It's 10:24am.
Boris Johnson, now Foreign Secretary, reassured Cameron in a secret text that Brexit would be 'crushed' – nine minutes before putting himself at the head of the Leave campaign.
I think, as much as the Remainians are temptation confused and demoralised, that the Brexiters really don't have as much power as they might like either. They remain a minority in the parliamentary party, if not in Cabinet, and their factional leader is an obvious chancer.
Important when thinking about the push and pull of Brexit over the next six months.
(I take the general view that Labour is irrelevant at least until Corbyn goes, that UKIP's fox has been shot, and the LDs - whatever their success in council by-elections - will be largely ignored.
Politics therefore becomes all about the battle within the Tory party, with May dependent on keeping the Osborne wing and the Johnson wing onside in the short-term.
Once the bones of an agreement is forged with the EU, logic then dictates a general election in order to get a proper majority. This would have the pleasing, secondary effect of delivering an implicit mandate for the Brexit agreement. I agree therefore we are likely to see an election in 2017).
May is not going to want the distraction of a general election campaign once she is negotiating and especially the distraction of UKIP pushing for an even harder line, there will be no general election until 2020 and a Brexit agreement is concluded
So ICM have Labour dropping to 26%... that could easily be and probably actually is 23%.
There are plenty (probably close to a majority) of UK voters who would never vote Tory. So these low Labour vote scenarios need to posit other parties for whom many such people will vote (which of course largely explains why Labour isn't polling even worse).
In a similar vein, imagine - just for the purposes of debate - a scenario for 2020 where Brexit is very obviously turning out badly for the UK, and the population is mightily unhappy about it. The current party leaders are all in post. What's the result of the GE?
UKIP is up on the general election with ICM and the Tories even more so
Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.
Maybe, but the Flowers stuff is all very much public domain, and Hillary will be a lot more upset with the public's new history lesson than Trump would ever be.
I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to make a House of Cards trailer showing the Clintons in place of the lead characters.
If they've really got balls, they'll do it with actual footage, will make a couple of days of headlines as HBO try and get it taken down - while everyone is talking about the comparison between the Underwoods and the Clintons.
That Trump had affairs has already been done - sure it'll get brought up again, but he's never claimed to be an unflawed person. And he wasn't President at the time or Gov of Arkansas.
It's pretty thin whataboutery that doesn't deflect much from the core problem - the Clintons have a crypt full of skeletons.
Bill lying on 60 Minutes is a corker. He later confessed under oath that he'd had a sexual relationship with Flowers. Was this the meaning of 'is' stuff? It was so absurd at the time - makes OJ Simpson look innocent.
Cameron, to the tune of "You Made Me Love You", sings to May.
You made me do it, I didn't want to do it, I didn't want to do it! You made back down ,I didn't want to do it, I didn't want to do it. You made back down, and all the time you knew it, I didn't want to do it. You made my policy on im-ig-grants cheap. And all that time I didn't dare a peep, I didn't dare to cheep. Yes, You made me do it!
Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.
Maybe, but the Flowers stuff is all very much public domain, and Hillary will be a lot more upset with the public's new history lesson than Trump would ever be.
I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to make a House of Cards trailer showing the Clintons in place of the lead characters.
If they've really got balls, they'll do it with actual footage, will make a couple of days of headlines as HBO try and get it taken down - while everyone is talking about the comparison between the Underwoods and the Clintons.
That Trump had affairs has already been done - sure it'll get brought up again, but he's never claimed to be an unflawed person. And he wasn't President at the time or Gov of Arkansas.
It's pretty thin whataboutery that doesn't deflect much from the core problem - the Clintons have a crypt full of skeletons.
Bill lying on 60 Minutes is a corker. He later confessed under oath that he'd had a sexual relationship with Flowers. Was this the meaning of 'is' stuff? It was so absurd at the time - makes OJ Simpson look innocent.
Comments
"But according to the woman who outed Monica Lewinsky as the president's mistress, the real story was never about Monica. It was about 'subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice… a true abuse of power.' And it was about Hillary.
Because, according to Linda Tripp, it was Hillary who manipulated and stage managed the story, converting herself from a lackluster First Lady with unimpressive approval ratings to admirable First Victim - the blindsided wife standing by her man. She made him forgivable. She 'orchestrated the cover up' and she made damn sure that she moved on. Nothing, and no-one, was going to stand in her way.
Linda Tripp, whose recorded conversations with Lewinsky - submitted to independent counsel Kenneth Starr - exposed the truth of the affair that both Lewinsky and Clinton had sought to deny, has never spoken fully until now.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176621/Lies-cover-ups-corruption-Linda-Tripp-West-Wing-assistant-outed-Monica-Lewinsky-s-sexual-liaison-Bill-Clinton-talks-time-Hillary-tells-never-President.html#ixzz4LFkMDDDO
Although, in that instance, it was a chap in his late 60s who came to the rescue.
On paper it has about doubled in size since the 2015 General Election. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption that new signs are going to have more enthusiasm than old timers, so its effective strength on the ground is likely to be even bigger.
Does this really sound like a party that can never win an election? As I say, I know all the logical arguments. But is logic that great a guide to outcomes in politics? And with a Labour Party that is so much bigger than the others, how many of our assumptions about the way elections work are still correct?
I won't deny if I was given the job of winning the next election and was going to get paid on results I'd choose the Blue team rather than the Red one. But I wouldn't spend the money till the votes were counted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WiQRBN8igE
Michael Deacon
Handed free leaflet outside Labour conference. It attacks The Morning Star for being insufficiently radical https://t.co/SJMHmmi7Xq
Further information available from Momentum Travel Experiences, Stall AC23, Main Hall.
And people want to make the identical mistake with HS2, God save us.
Chelsea is clearly Bill's kid. In the same flattering way that Beatrice/Eugenie is Andrew's
"Now, support for Labour has dropped another couple of percentage points towards the dreaded mid-20s. Those mass rallies by which Jeremy Corbyn sets such store could be the first stirrings of a social movement, some of which may play a part in an eventual left renaissance. But for now, they say nothing about Labour and the left’s basic predicament. (In its own way, in fact, the idea that they augur well for Corbyn’s electoral prospects is reminiscent of what I call the John Peel mistake. Circa 1969, the DJ wondered why one of his favourite albums was not in the charts: “Everyone I know’s got a copy,” he said. Back came the reply: “No – you know everyone who’s got a copy.”)"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/09/new-times-john-harris-why-labour-losing-its-heartland
It is no wonder that an electrified, politically enthused Far Left can outmuscle the more pragmatic and practical Tory Party membership in terms of sheer weight of numbers, but selling the same prospectus to a deeply sceptical electorate is a different thing entirely. In a General Election contest, where the average voter is looking for managerial competence and a platform and set of values that most closely conform to their own opinions and prejudices, the Conservative Party is a country mile ahead - and, against Corbyn Labour, it will continue to be so.
300,000 people have just voted for Jeremy Corbyn. That's 3% of the 10,000,000 people who need to vote for him in a general election. What's his plan for attracting the 9,700,000 new voters he needs to win, rather than speak only to the 300,000 he has in the bag already?
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/772705722073280512
Outside of George W. Bush getting re-elected, the last time I can remember the Trump level of "Eeeeeew!" from the UK at the prospect of a candidate getting elected - and a sense of dread once it happened - was Reagan in 1980. And that didn't turn out so bad.
UKIP's broad but shallow approach has been rubbish for years but if they breach the dam they'll get a flood of seats. We'll see how James does.
this to me is the real problem. What happens when it comes to the nitty gritty of policy? The party can talk about unity all it likes, but what will Chukka and co. do when the party formulates a hard left policy platform? I guess many labour voters would simply abstain, but its much more difficult for the party's senio representatives.
Would have to think about that.
However, it can be very off-putting to those outside the One True Faith.
Nuance is a shade unfashionable.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/24/only-liberalism-can-thwart-demagogues?CMP=twt_gu
https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/779959492758863872
But see where American power stands today. Russia, Assad, Iran and Hezbollah break the Syrian ceasefire. They bomb aid convoys and turn Aleppo into a 21th-century Dresden. Barack Obama and John Kerry do not look like imperious masters of a unipolar world now. They look like what they are: impotent and humiliated has-beens. Russia can do what it wishes in the Middle East. However loudly America complains it has no option but to tag along.
Con 41 (nc)
Lab 26 (-1)
LD 8 (-1)
UKIP 14 (+1)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1847664/labour-faces-mass-defeat-at-next-election-after-jeremy-corbyn-is-voted-to-remain-leader-shocking-poll-suggests/
A few overnight show significant swings to Trump. Check end of last thread.
Nature abhors a vacuum and the people need a choice. It doesn't have to be Labour but they are very much in pole position and are going to be very hard to shift.
Cuckquean - wife of an adulterer
Wittol - a husband of an adulteress who knows and permits/ encourages it.
Her father's Janet Reno."
Looking at the Anthony Wells list of estimated results under the new boundaries, Ukip retain (just) the advantage in Harwich and Clacton, are 900 votes short of the Tories in Thanet East (although it's unknowable how much of that could be down to the Farage effect,) and are competitive in a couple of other three way marginals: Thurrock (1,000 votes behind the winner,) and Stoke on Trent North (4,000 votes adrift.) After that, they are about 6,000 votes (12% or so) adrift of the Tories in Boston & Skegness, and of Labour in Dagenham & Rainham, below which things get substantially tougher. Thus, the number of seats in which Ukip appear quite competitive is tiny, and only two of those are notionally held by Labour.
We'll have to see how effective James is, firstly at holding her party together and continuing to keep it prominent in the national conversation post-Brexit, and secondly at trying to target the Labour heartland rather than holding on to modest numbers of voters all over the country, to no useful effect. My hunch at this stage has to be that, even if Ukip really gets its act together, this is a project for two Parliaments: to wear down Labour's majorities in the target seats and turn them into winnable marginals for next time around. At this stage, the main threat that Ukip votes pose to Labour would appear to be (a) forcing the party to devote resources to shoring up previously neglected safe seats, i.e. opening another front on which it has to defend itself; and (b) the likelihood that many professed Ukip voters will cast tactical ballots against Labour, to help out the Tories in Con-Lab marginals.
I will leave you to google the explanation. I have and I still don't really get it.
The Times post Brexit is very tediously Remain and liberal left about everything. Very disappointing and unimaginative reading most days.
The mushy centre is not where the public are, nor the memberships.
There are no good options left for moderates in Labour, but it seems that they are terrified of initiating a split because the likelihood is that it would lead to wholesale electoral slaughter, and there's no guarantee by any means that Corbyn's rump party - which would presumably retain control of the hugely valuable Labour brand - wouldn't emerge post-2020 as much the stronger of the two factions. Thus, those occupying a share of the 170 or so Labour safe seats liable to be held even in the event of a crushing defeat are hunkering down and preparing to fight possible de-selection, whilst the MPs in the marginals... well, I don't know, examining their future career options I suppose.
Even if you thought 2031+ was a certainty because a time-traveller from the future had shown you conclusive proof (and this was the sole thing you knew about the future) there are more boring places to stick your money that should out-return this market.
Jim Pickard
Corbyn unsure about extra resources for MI6 to tackle jihadis: "I don't necessarily think that's particularly necessary." #marr
In a similar vein, imagine - just for the purposes of debate - a scenario for 2020 where Brexit is very obviously turning out badly for the UK, and the population is mightily unhappy about it. The current party leaders are all in post. What's the result of the GE?
Boris Johnson, now Foreign Secretary, reassured Cameron in a secret text that Brexit would be 'crushed' – nine minutes before putting himself at the head of the Leave campaign.
I think, as much as the Remainians are temporarily confused and demoralised, that the Brexiters really don't have as much power as they might like either. They remain a minority in the parliamentary party, if not in Cabinet, and their factional leader is an obvious chancer.
Important when thinking about the push and pull of Brexit over the next six months.
(I take the general view that Labour is irrelevant at least until Corbyn goes, that UKIP's fox has been shot, and the LDs - whatever their success in council by-elections - will be largely ignored.
Politics therefore becomes all about the battle within the Tory party, with May dependent on keeping the Osborne wing and the Johnson wing onside in the short-term.
Once the bones of an agreement is forged with the EU, logic then dictates a general election in order to get a proper majority. This would have the pleasing, secondary effect of delivering an implicit mandate for the Brexit agreement. I agree therefore we are likely to see an election in 2017).
An interesting tactic! I suspect it may work. At least he's challenging the system - even if the system will fight against him.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/714125/Shooting-University-Illinois-manhunt
Glen O'Hara
#Labour wd lose every Con target up to Cardiff S (!) and May wd have a maj of 156. Don't think in practice wd be that bad, but sobering.
You made me do it, I didn't want to do it, I didn't want to do it!
You made back down ,I didn't want to do it, I didn't want to do it.
You made back down, and all the time you knew it, I didn't want to do it.
You made my policy on im-ig-grants cheap.
And all that time I didn't dare a peep, I didn't dare to cheep.
Yes, You made me do it!
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/camerons-lily-livered-sneer-at-may-8pzwt0pks