Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s TINA* nightmare.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s TINA* nightmare.
It’s International Peace Day and I’m in the strange position, for me, of defending Jeremy Corbyn. My audience is someone who ought to be a natural Corbynista – a veteran campaigner for peace and international development.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Is that at all likely?
That Clive Lewis moment summed up the clusterfeck the modern day Labour party is.
Katy Perry goes nude for Hillary Clinton as US presidential election race heats up
Perry, 31, has publicly endorsed the democratic nominee on multiple occasions in the past
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/katy-perry-goes-nude-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election-race-heats-1583522
Edit/ disappointed to see a post from the shameless Mr Brind!
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746
Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?
etc etc
But does he really need even that? It would suit his faction rather well if Labour did badly after a few years of infighting because the defeat could be convincingly blamed on the holdouts, enabling a purge in earnest. So he doesn't need to extend olive branches. In victory, he should be uncompromising.
Chico Flores is having the last laugh on Twitter over the Sam Allardyce affair. Back in 2013 the former Swansea defender was laughed at by Allardyce, who was then West Ham manager, when the player went down rather dramatically after a clash with the Hammers’ Carlton Cole. This morning Flores couldn’t help but have a dig.
https://twitter.com/ChicoFlores12/status/780729209081724928?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Do not play the "Labour in Power" drinking game during Sadiq Khan's speech...
Where is his parade???
interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...
" “It was an awesome night for Democrats,” said DNC member Robert Zimmerman, as he headed out of the debate space Monday night. “There’ll be no bedwetting for 12 hours.” "
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-democrats-debate-228760?lo=ap_c1
1. Sit tight and get deselected
2. Sit tight and get voted out
3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat
FPT @ Mr Cole and Mr Llama
I never wonder that question (about doing science at school). I wonder why we couldn't do as many subjects as we liked at school. But then I remember - ah, yes! No computers and no internet, having to rely on teachers for information and libraries for books. I have never regretted studying science formally and filling in the gaps of arts, languages and history myself. And making learning a life-long hobby.
Now thanks to Cookie and Hurstllama I have two more books to clutter the house for the effort of just two clicks of the trackpad. I am particularly looking forward to the Oppenheimer book - my (American) wife is constantly telling me how all the British/Irish are genetically identical and we are silly to hang on to our home country identities.
BTW and FWIW, for those interested in anecdotal evidence of a US citizen's response to the debate, the wife (who is anyone but Trump) fell asleep after 40 minutes, was surprised Trump held it together and hated Hillary more after the debate than before. One element in Hillary's favour - she intends to vote Johnson, unless it's close, in which case she will hold her nose and vote Hillary.
They can't. The left is stuck with Corbyn, as is Labour as a whole, because the PLP have no obligation to bow to the expanded membership's desires and nominate anyone from the left, whether it be McDonnell, Lewis, Raynor or whoever. Deny them the nominations and suddenly the party is back under the moderates' control. Until and unless the leadership rules are changed, TINA to Corbyn.
Of course, the membership would be up in arms if they were denied a candidate but what are they going to do? Deselect? Not that easily done. Resign en mass? The MPs will wave them goodbye. Protest? it'd be ignored.
Perhaps the leadership nomination rules will be changed (personally, I'd have thought that switching to CLP nominations rather than MPs would be more in keeping with the philosophy of a 'members' party') but if so, it won't be for at least a year and more likely two.
But while Corbyn is a disaster as leader, it's not just down to his failings. Kinnock was a step up from what Benn would have been in 1987 but he was still unelectable because of his policies. Any candidate from left of Miliband will still struggle for the same reason that he did: where's the money coming from?
Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809609/Jewish-activist-HECKLED-Labour-conference-slams-party-unsafe-place-Jews.html
In a nutshell, try and buck the tsunami that is coming and be one of those left standing.
That would be such a rubbish line from him. If you donate money to a campaign, you do it so the candidate campaigns...
It is the most horrendous bind, and I cannot see how the MPs can possibly escape from it. If they believe that the leader is both incompetent and immovable (AND have publicly declared him to be so,) then they cannot go limping on for years as Labour politicians, and into a General Election where they will have to advise voters to install him as Prime Minister, without being accused both of lying, and of taking the public for fools. The only moral and credible options they have are to resign from Labour and defect to another party, sit as independents, or give up altogether.
And I wouldn't bank on the Trident issue having been settled either.
Frank Luntz is the conservative message guru who gave us “death tax”, among other right-wing tropes. He ran a focus group tonight for CBS, and it unambiguously proved that Hillary Clinton absolutely crushed it tonight."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/26/1574733/-Frank-Luntz-s-debate-focus-group-proves-that-Hillary-Clinton-crushed-it
1. No hard left candidates would be voted in.
2. The shadow cabinet gets NEC seats.
Panorama - Undercover: Football's Dirty Secrets (2006)
http://www.peterjpotts.com/Video_Pages/BBC/BBC_P_Football.html
Trump is doing a good job of biting his tongue, we all know he can do nasty very well as we've been watching him for years.
I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to do the House of Cards spoof trailer, starring the Clintons. They must be holding it back for the last couple of weeks.
i) Remain doesn't have a majority in the House of Commons
ii) Neither Remain or The Tories have a majority in the House of Lords
That, with the delay, makes the world of difference.
The Conservatives are very likely to be in control at Westminster for a long time, and when they are finally removed it will probably be by a new force.
(Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)
TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.
Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
If Nige can take a potentially hopeless party full of Fs, Ls, and CRs to 4m votes, then surely Chuka or whoever can lead SDP2 to something significant.
They're both far superior candidates to Owen Smith.
"Thanks to your bookies, this American is preparing to make a lot of money. If the British public currently think Barack Obama is coasting to victory in the Nov. 6 election, they are gravely mistaken. Mitt Romney can win this election. No doubt about it. And it will be because of the first presidential debate on October 3 — a battle of ideas and ideologies that changed American politics as we know it. That day, Romney came to fight and Obama became his punching bag."
Skip Lunch.
Location has zero impact on debate performance. Obama beat McCain at a debate held in Mississippi from memory, hardly a liberal bastion.
Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!
And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.
Anyway, we will find out in a few days
He brought up all secondary questions that were Trump's "weaknesses", the racist and sexist stuff, the birther stuff and his tax returns. Total fair to ask.
But to Clinton...nothing...Trump had to scream EMAILS...nothing on Clinton Foundation...etc etc etc.
Both are so covered in shit you could do a 3 x 90 minute debates just on their lies and scandals.
If your talking foundations, I think it's fair to say Trump's is 100 times more corrupt than anything the Clinton foundation is accused ( most of which seems to be conjecture)
If you are talking emails, that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless. And if the issue is transparency, then I'm not sure Trump can compare...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/27/vr-developers-oculus-rift-pro-trump-support
And never mind the media, the greater risk the voters will start tarring them with the same brush.
Labour MPs need to start finding their moral compasses. They need to start using their consciences. A clean conscience, behaving like a morally decent person are (to me anyway) more important than a fake unity based around toleration of or turning a blind eye to morally reprehensible behavior.
If there is a pro parliament judgement in the Supreme Court then I would think it would be more likely to have a snap general election to provide additional pressure on parliament.
I personally take issue with Trump Foundation is worse than Clinton Foundation. One is accused of stuff like buying paintings with the charity money which they then keep (certainly bad), Clinton Foundation is accused of something on a much much bigger scale.
There are also lots of other Clinton lies and scandals. IMO both are totally unsuitable to be candidates for POTUS and in previous years if either had ran against a normal opponent the level of dirt would sink them.
My point was if you are going to bring up valid stuff about Trump in the form of a question (which I actually don't think the moderator should do, leave it to the candidates to do that), you have to do it to both.
In exactly what way are Remainers letting anything go tested or uncontested?Every time something happens (usually a positive economic indicator determined at five minutes after midnight on June 23rd) then the overwhelming chorus is: "see, Brexit is a success." Every time an institution, Lloyds, say, explains the extra costs that Brexit could involve, the chorus says: "fear mongering...so what...it's only Lloyds.."
The reality is that the line in the sand will be immigration and border controls. That is the starting point and any economic gain or damage limitation will be contingent upon how pragmatic or generous or convinced the EU27 are with our position on immigration set in stone.