Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
The skills required to win a leadership election and to win a General Election are totally different.
In a leadership election, you're preaching to the choir - telling people who are pretty much on the same page as you what they want to hear. For a General Election, you're telling the non-committal, apolitical and wavering supporters of your opponent from across a wide spectrum of views that you are more competent than the current rabble.
Nobody doubts Corbyn's ability to fill a hall with old (and young) Trots and a certain breed of trades unionist, all of whom are already fully on board. Like an old rocker, deep in his comfort zone, trotting out the tried and tested hits to late middle aged fans to raise money for his new swimming pool. But he has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to reach out and settle the nerves of the centre-ground where these things are won... and he never will.
Corbyn has spent his life addressing halls and fields full of like minded people. He is good at public speaking. What he isn't good at is dealing with difficult questions in an interview, thinking on his feet, exuding an air of authority and charisma or looking like a PM in waiting. For those who sat in Shadow Cabinet with Corbyn from day one it soon became clear that he did not possess the leadership qualities they would have expected and needed to see in the party leader.
Clearly many in the PLP and in the wider party want rid of Corbyn because they want a less radically left manifesto. However for others, such as me, it isn't primarily policy it is personality. Let's keep our policies on the economy, education, health and renationalisation of key public utilities and services, but we need someone fronting them who can connect with the voters and in whom they can place their trust to run the country.
Corbyn needs to learn from Sanders (who also flirted with a lot of foreign affairs stuff in the past) and spend the next four years talking about the economy, the economy, and the economy. No speeches on defence or liberation struggles around the world, no nothing other than relentless focus on selling a fairer economic settlement. Then he might stand some chance.
Yesterday at work we were talking about Jezza's eulogy for Castro. Someone asked who would be next for the same heartfelt praise. Two of us simultaneously answered Pol Pot. Even in jest it was damning.
And another thing, I don't think that elected L/Dem MP Olney will prove much use to the L/Dms if she cant stand the heat of a few attacking questions on radio, as happened yesterday when she was dragged off air by her handler.
On current boundaries:
Con 353 (+22) Lab 208 (-24) LD 9 (+1) UKIP 1 (-) Green 1 (-) SNP 56 (-) PC 4 (+1)
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
The skills required to win a leadership election and to win a General Election are totally different.
In a leadership election, you're preaching to the choir - telling people who are pretty much on the same page as you what they want to hear. For a General Election, you're telling the non-committal, apolitical and wavering supporters of your opponent from across a wide spectrum of views that you are more competent than the current rabble.
Nobody doubts Corbyn's ability to fill a hall with old (and young) Trots and a certain breed of trades unionist, all of whom are already fully on board. Like an old rocker, deep in his comfort zone, trotting out the tried and tested hits to late middle aged fans to raise money for his new swimming pool. But he has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to reach out and settle the nerves of the centre-ground where these things are won... and he never will.
Corbyn has spent his life addressing halls and fields full of like minded people. He is good at public speaking. What he isn't good at is dealing with difficult questions in an interview, thinking on his feet, exuding an air of authority and charisma or looking like a PM in waiting. For those who sat in Shadow Cabinet with Corbyn from day one it soon became clear that he did not possess the leadership qualities they would have expected and needed to see in the party leader.
Clearly many in the PLP and in the wider party want rid of Corbyn because they want a less radically left manifesto. However for others, such as me, it isn't primarily policy it is personality. Let's keep our policies on the economy, education, health and renationalisation of key public utilities and services, but we need someone fronting them who can connect with the voters and in whom they can place their trust to run the country.
Corbyn needs to learn from Sanders (who also flirted with a lot of foreign affairs stuff in the past) and spend the next four years talking about the economy, the economy, and the economy. No speeches on defence or liberation struggles around the world, no nothing other than relentless focus on selling a fairer economic settlement. Then he might stand some chance.
Yesterday at work we were talking about Jezza's eulogy for Castro. Someone asked who would be next for the same heartfelt praise. Two of us simultaneously answered Pol Pot. Even in jest it was damning.
I'm definitely detecting a whiff of panic amongst the Leavers. It's not that Brexit won't happen - that's a done deal - but rather that everything's now pointing to its being a botched job that will please no one. But they'll just have to put up with it I'm afraid - Brexit is now an establishment movement and the establishment always gets it in the neck. This is what responsibility feels like.
F1: hmm. If you think Bottas will get the gig, backing him each way (26, each way = fifth odds for top 3) for the title makes sense. Weirdly, Wehrlein isn't listed.
Edited extra bit: I've backed that with a tiny sum. It pays out if Bottas goes and Mercedes have a tasty car. It's hedgeable if they're competitive or the Red Bull falls off a cliff.
F1: a lazy aside, but Rosberg is 11 to be Hamilton's team mate next year. That's a bit odd.
Button's odds have been suspended, not sure why (both Ladbrokes).
There is a strand of thought that Mercedes have approached Button because he is a good development driver and Hamilton would he comfortable with him as a team mate. Additionally he also has a good relationship with Paddy Lowe.
Mr. Max, indeed. The judiciary telling the Government it'd need to have a massive bill rather than a single sentence would be out of line.
Mr. Ears, I agree entirely. It should've had a sunset clause as well, so that it needed renewing or would naturally lapse after the 2015 election.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd say that suggest the Mail is preparing the ground for a probable defeat (from their perspective) in the courts.
I am certain the Government will be defeated but if they do more than just require the Government to pass a bill through Parliament I believe we would have a huge constitutional crisis
F1: hmm. If you think Bottas will get the gig, backing him each way (26, each way = fifth odds for top 3) for the title makes sense. Weirdly, Wehrlein isn't listed.
Edited extra bit: I've backed that with a tiny sum. It pays out if Bottas goes and Mercedes have a tasty car. It's hedgeable if they're competitive or the Red Bull falls off a cliff.
You can get 9/4 on Wehrlein to replace Rosberg with Sky Bet:
Mr. Topping, assigning multiple things that will be magically resolved to the departure, in the minds of all Leave voters.
Both campaigns were broad coalitions of people with varying perspectives. Migration was never a major issue for me. I was concerned by the near certain short term hit to the economy (I wavered more than expected in the polling booth). Sovereignty and the direction of travel of the EU were the critical factors.
I didn't see a big red bus, read a slogan and decide how to vote based on that, and I don't think leaving the EU will wave a magic wand that will make everything better.
On here, we have had arguments put forward that all of those things on the list are likely to be addressed now that we're leaving the EU. It's not patronising to point this out.
Funnily enough I don't think any PB Leaver thought for one minute that there would be £350m heading to the NHS but were happy for it to have been deployed in order to achieve their aim.
Mr. Max, interesting. That said, Button seemed pretty content to be leaving the sport.
Be nice to see them reunited at another team. I wonder if McLaren would be happy, though.
Yeah, but a drive in the fastest car on the grid and potentially winning races again might bring him back for one more year after three years of dying in the McLaren.
I don't think McLaren will be particularly bothered. Alonso might though!
Mr. Topping, assigning multiple things that will be magically resolved to the departure, in the minds of all Leave voters.
Both campaigns were broad coalitions of people with varying perspectives. Migration was never a major issue for me. I was concerned by the near certain short term hit to the economy (I wavered more than expected in the polling booth). Sovereignty and the direction of travel of the EU were the critical factors.
I didn't see a big red bus, read a slogan and decide how to vote based on that, and I don't think leaving the EU will wave a magic wand that will make everything better.
On here, we have had arguments put forward that all of those things on the list are likely to be addressed now that we're leaving the EU. It's not patronising to point this out.
Funnily enough I don't think any PB Leaver on here thought for one minute that there would be £350m heading to the NHS but were happy for it to have been deployed in order to achieve their aim.
I have been honest about my position on the £350m and as a result have been on the receiving end of repeated bouts of vitriol from some PBers.
Mr. Max, but McLaren's Prodromou is a handy aero chap and if Honda can finally (due to restrictions on development/changes being lifted) make good with the engine then that knowledge won't be something the team will want taking to Mercedes.
Alonso to Mercedes would be fantastic for fans, but I can't see it happening.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
Mr. Topping, assigning multiple things that will be magically resolved to the departure, in the minds of all Leave voters.
Both campaigns were broad coalitions of people with varying perspectives. Migration was never a major issue for me. I was concerned by the near certain short term hit to the economy (I wavered more than expected in the polling booth). Sovereignty and the direction of travel of the EU were the critical factors.
I didn't see a big red bus, read a slogan and decide how to vote based on that, and I don't think leaving the EU will wave a magic wand that will make everything better.
On here, we have had arguments put forward that all of those things on the list are likely to be addressed now that we're leaving the EU. It's not patronising to point this out.
Funnily enough I don't think any PB Leaver thought for one minute that there would be £350m heading to the NHS but were happy for it to have been deployed in order to achieve their aim.
There were those on here who denied that the £350million/week to the NHS was a lie.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
Just as Brexit is a symptom of a backlash against globalisation, Corbyn is a symptom of the backlash against an increasingly impotent left who have lost all of the economic arguments and won most of the social ones leaving them politically useless.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
I had an interesting video call from my eldest son in Vancouver yesterday. He is in International Trade with Offices in Canada, US, New Zealand and China and he dismissed the EU as a relevant trading block.
He expects Trump to make deals with Putin and that US, Russia and China will dominate trade with individual Country trade deals becoming the norm.
He said that it is likely that Trump will not intervene with Putin if he decides to annex Ukraine but that Putin will not cross into the Baltic States due to NATO.
The US are very pro UK and that the UK is respected throughout the World and seen as a place to do deals with. The US is also pleased that the UK spends 2% on defence and that Trump will expect all NATO members to step up to the plate.
There is a much bigger World than Europe and certainly when you are in Vancouver there is a large Far East influence on trade affairs
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
Just as Brexit is a symptom of a backlash against globalisation, Corbyn is a symptom of the backlash against an increasingly impotent left who have lost all of the economic arguments and won most of the social ones leaving them politically useless.
My micro-aggression outrage is offended by your insensitive post.
Delete your account or I'll incite a TwitMob to get you sacked
What made the £350m figure effective was that the only defence the Remainers could offer was 'No we don't hose £350m against the wall every week - we only hose £180m against the wall every week'. So that's OK then.
I loved Dr P's bar chart comparing our overseas aid to the EU with what we give to India.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
Which is also why the idea of a "progressive" alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems is never going to work. They are fishing in the same pond, especially in London.
What made the £350m figure effective was that the only defence the Remainers could offer was 'No we don't hose £350m against the wall every week - we only hose £180m against the wall every week'. So that's OK then.
I loved Dr P's bar chart comparing our overseas aid to the EU with what we give to India.
what were those borrowing figures from the AS again?
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
Which is also why the idea of a "progressive" alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems is never going to work. They are fishing in the same pond, especially in London.
Also, most LibDems hate the Labour Party, and most Labourites despise the LibDems.
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Judges appointed with a two thirds majority in the Commons? Life time tenures. Essentially copying the SCOTUS but with a two thirds majority to reflect that the executive and legislature are one and the same here.
I am getting really fed up with how Brexit is also leading to americanisation.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
Just as Brexit is a symptom of a backlash against globalisation, Corbyn is a symptom of the backlash against an increasingly impotent left who have lost all of the economic arguments and won most of the social ones leaving them politically useless.
I think you've got it somewhat back to front. A Tory government is enacting a Keynesian fiscal stimulus, with Trump ready to do the same and increase US protectionism. Meanwhile the British public back renationalisation of the railways.
On the other side there is a populist backlash against social liberalism on steroids, again from Trumpism but also Kipperism and strands of Blue Labourism.
On Topic. Herdson is wrong as usual. Not only is calling an Election hard, its also incredibly risky. If May lost the vote she would be out. Even assuming no Tory rebels May would need at least 100 Labour MPs to vote for the end of their own careers. The "Lets pretend we arent the Government" approach might work but again, a handful of Tory abstentions could produce a Labour Minority Government with SNP/LD backing. Pointless but embarassing & again May would be out. Nothing is as simple or easy as Herdson believes.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
Mereyside, Birmingham, Greater Manchester, most of South Yorkshire and the North East are pretty solid. There are about 30 seats that are vulnerable to the Tories and a couple to UKIP.
I think you've got it somewhat back to front. A Tory government is enacting a Keynesian fiscal stimulus, with Trump ready to do the same and increase US protectionism. Meanwhile the British public back renationalisation of the railways.
On the other side there is a populist backlash against social liberalism on steroids, again from Trumpism but also Kipperism and strands of Blue Labourism.
That's the Brexit/Trump backlash on the right. On the left it is because the mainstream right have accepted the major social arguments of the left including gay rights and equal opportunity. It means the left have nowhere to go because the Tories also own the socially liberal agenda, hence Jez and his band of Islingtonites.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
Which is also why the idea of a "progressive" alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems is never going to work. They are fishing in the same pond, especially in London.
Re the UK's current account and deteriorating net investment position.
The UK has had continuous trade deficits from 1998 onwards.
The UK has also had continuous tourism deficits for even longer.
Are there any other Western countries which have the continuous deficits in both trade and tourism for such an extended period ?
The Daily Mail has a four page analysis of the 11 Supreme Court Judges with star ratings for their pro EU stances. They are going to do an in depth resume of each Judge's involvement in the EU on Monday.
Many may say that the Mail is attempting to intimidate them but many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
The question is when is it appropriate for the judges to declare an interest and why can they override this essential safeguard required by our MP's
The Mail is simply trying to undermine the rule of law because it happens to suit its political agenda to do so at the moment. Standard Mail tactic, personal attacks and abuse of individuals that stand in its way. The Mail doesn't care what long-term damage it does in pursuit of its political objectives. Straight from the 1930s playbook. You think they might have learned their lesson but I suspect they believe their time has come again.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
The skills required to win a leadership election and to win a General Election are totally different.
In a leadership election, you're preaching to the choir - telling people who are pretty much on the same page as you what they want to hear. For a General Election, you're telling the non-committal, apolitical and wavering supporters of your opponent from across a wide spectrum of views that you are more competent than the current rabble.
Nobody doubts Corbyn's ability to fill a hall with old (and young) Trots and a certain breed of trades unionist, all of whom are already fully on board. Like an old rocker, deep in his comfort zone, trotting out the tried and tested hits to late middle aged fans to raise money for his new swimming pool. But he has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to reach out and settle the nerves of the centre-ground where these things are won... and he never will.
Corbyn has spent his life addressing halls and fields full of like minded people. He is good at public speaking. What he isn't good at is dealing with difficult questions in an interview, thinking on his feet, exuding an air of authority and charisma or looking like a PM in waiting. For those who sat in Shadow Cabinet with Corbyn from day one it soon became clear that he did not possess the leadership qualities they would have expected and needed to see in the party leader.
Clearly many in the PLP and in the wider party want rid of Corbyn because they want a less radically left manifesto. However for others, such as me, it isn't primarily policy it is personality. Let's keep our policies on the economy, education, health and renationalisation of key public utilities and services, but we need someone fronting them who can connect with the voters and in whom they can place their trust to run the country.
I suspect a more charismatic leader with similar economic policies would do rather well in the current climate. Another big problem with Corbyn is the baggage from years of focussing on fringe issues - he comes across as someone who cares more about those things than the mundane everyday concerns people have .
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into by a centrist Remainer.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
Mereyside, Birmingham, Greater Manchester, most of South Yorkshire and the North East are pretty solid. There are about 30 seats that are vulnerable to the Tories and a couple to UKIP.
Merseyside is just about the only area where traditional Labour support among white working-class British voters is not in decline.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
And this from a party who lost their deposit in Richmond. The Labour Party is strong and has deep roots but Scotland has shown the limitations of relying on that for too long in the face of rank incompetence.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
And this from a party who lost their deposit in Richmond. The Labour Party is strong and has deep roots but Scotland has shown the limitations of relying on that for too long in the face of rank incompetence.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
And this from a party who lost their deposit in Richmond. The Labour Party is strong and has deep roots but Scotland has shown the limitations of relying on that for too long in the face of rank incompetence.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
And this from a party who lost their deposit in Richmond. The Labour Party is strong and has deep roots but Scotland has shown the limitations of relying on that for too long in the face of rank incompetence.
Maybe they should have said "inner London"?
Eventually that will become Islington and Camden!
Come be charitable, I think Holborn & St Pancras is also safe.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
Mereyside, Birmingham, Greater Manchester, most of South Yorkshire and the North East are pretty solid. There are about 30 seats that are vulnerable to the Tories and a couple to UKIP.
Merseyside is just about the only area where traditional Labour support among white working-class British voters is not in decline.
Give it two more elections and Lancashire, inner London and seats with very large BAME votes could be Labour's last strongholds. I wouldn't count on Wales, the North East and significant chunks of Yorkshire (where the BNP used to accumulate a lot of votes in European elections before Ukip got big) holding firm for Labour indefinitely: the Tories, Ukip and Plaid are all circling. And Bristol, Brighton, Norwich, Oxford and Cambridge all look potentially vulnerable to Green and Lib Dem attack if Labour begins to emit the stench of death.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
And this from a party who lost their deposit in Richmond. The Labour Party is strong and has deep roots but Scotland has shown the limitations of relying on that for too long in the face of rank incompetence.
That's just one more clause "they all apply until Parliament decides otherwise"
Doesn't work because aspects of the 1972 Act are based on the European court system, which would (in fact) no longer have jurisdiction to hear UK cases. So there would be de facto repeal without Parliamentary approval.
Then you assign the responsibility to another court.
It's not about assigning responsibility over NEW cases, but about transitional provisions for cases already ongoing, and the status of decisions made in the past either by EU courts or by UK courts relying on EU precedent (both the validity of those decisions and applicability for the future).
It's not insurmountable, but the point is that the Supreme Court could decide that the legislation required for Article 50 is reasonably complex. If it is, that delays things in itself, and gives a lot of scope for amendment by the Lords.
It MAY be that the Supreme Court sees a virtual one-liner as legally appropriate (or they may be silent on the matter). But the presumption that it will be, "This House agrees the Government should trigger Article 50 now" (or something not much longer) may well be misplaced.
On Topic. Herdson is wrong as usual. Not only is calling an Election hard, its also incredibly risky. If May lost the vote she would be out. Even assuming no Tory rebels May would need at least 100 Labour MPs to vote for the end of their own careers. The "Lets pretend we arent the Government" approach might work but again, a handful of Tory abstentions could produce a Labour Minority Government with SNP/LD backing. Pointless but embarassing & again May would be out. Nothing is as simple or easy as Herdson believes.
The idea that any Conservative MP would vote to install Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Street, or permit this to occur by their absence - regardless of how mad keen they are on the EU, or how Yellow Tory their world view may be - is literally incredible. And this would also require the DUP (pro-Brexit and not mates of the IRA) not to turn up as well.
Herdson is correct. As a last resort, the Government can resign and then the Right can vote down any attempt to cobble together a rainbow coalition. It would be a ridiculous pantomime, but one that could be blamed - with considerable justification - on the Liberal Democrats. There are no plausible circumstances under which this would lead to an alternative Government being installed rather than a new election.
That's just one more clause "they all apply until Parliament decides otherwise"
Doesn't work because aspects of the 1972 Act are based on the European court system, which would (in fact) no longer have jurisdiction to hear UK cases. So there would be de facto repeal without Parliamentary approval.
Then you assign the responsibility to another court.
It's not about assigning responsibility over NEW cases, but about transitional provisions for cases already ongoing, and the status of decisions made in the past either by EU courts or by UK courts relying on EU precedent (both the validity of those decisions and applicability for the future).
It's not insurmountable, but the point is that the Supreme Court could decide that the legislation required for Article 50 is reasonably complex. If it is, that delays things in itself, and gives a lot of scope for amendment by the Lords.
It MAY be that the Supreme Court sees a virtual one-liner as legally appropriate (or they may be silent on the matter). But the presumption that it will be, "This House agrees the Government should trigger Article 50 now" (or something not much longer) may well be misplaced.
It would be unusual for a Supreme Court to be prescriptive rather than proscriptive. They should steer clear of politics in my view.
The Daily Mail has a four page analysis of the 11 Supreme Court Judges with star ratings for their pro EU stances. They are going to do an in depth resume of each Judge's involvement in the EU on Monday.
Many may say that the Mail is attempting to intimidate them but many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
The question is when is it appropriate for the judges to declare an interest and why can they override this essential safeguard required by our MP's
It's disingenuous in the extreme to criticise judges on the basis of their being "unelected". (And hypocritial to criticise them simultaneously as somehow having political intent.) The last thing we need or want is elected judges. They are there as independent arbiters - as independent as any human being is - of the meaning of the law, and we, through parliament, have the power to change almost any law at almost any time. So the courts' power is very narrow.
I am sure that the inhabitants of a former Soviet slave state are thrilled at being lectured at concerning the joys of socialism. Another reminder of why the death of the Labour Party can't come about soon enough (and also why it probably won't happen - too good to be true.)
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
He fought off a sustained attempt to oust him.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
"There is no safe Labour seat, outside London." - unnamed Labour MP quoted in this weekend's NewStatesman.
Mereyside, Birmingham, Greater Manchester, most of South Yorkshire and the North East are pretty solid. There are about 30 seats that are vulnerable to the Tories and a couple to UKIP.
I expect Brum to start getting difficult for Labour....
The bill need only specify that HMG enjoys the confidence of parliament to negotiate the terms on which the UK exit the EU. Voting down the bill, or amending such that the government is restricted as to the terms, would then be a vote of no confidence in the government and provoke a general election after the inevitable 14 day period during which no other government can be formed with the confidence of the house.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn was swept in by a supportive wave. He is a product of circumstance, not design.
Harriet Harman deserves the blame for Corbyn being where he is.
Comments
Con 353 (+22)
Lab 208 (-24)
LD 9 (+1)
UKIP 1 (-)
Green 1 (-)
SNP 56 (-)
PC 4 (+1)
Con maj 56
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=39&LAB=27&LIB=9&UKIP=14&Green=4&NewLAB=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVUKIP=&TVGreen=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2015
Button's odds have been suspended, not sure why (both Ladbrokes).
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/804995224363827202
Edited extra bit: I've backed that with a tiny sum. It pays out if Bottas goes and Mercedes have a tasty car. It's hedgeable if they're competitive or the Red Bull falls off a cliff.
Be nice to see them reunited at another team. I wonder if McLaren would be happy, though.
http://tinyurl.com/zsh7sx5
Funnily enough I don't think any PB Leaver thought for one minute that there would be £350m heading to the NHS but were happy for it to have been deployed in order to achieve their aim.
Assuming that Leave voters think the same is as mad as thinking all Remain voters think the same, or the entire Labour bloc is Corbynista.
Mr. 86, that's pretty good. Back it at 3 (a quarter shorter) on Ladbrokes the other day.
I don't think McLaren will be particularly bothered. Alonso might though!
Alonso to Mercedes would be fantastic for fans, but I can't see it happening.
He's no pushover, and people should be wary of the risk that mocking him could be counterproductive. May's IMF/IFS quip is a case in point. It might play well in the chamber, but ordinary people will care more about what Corbyn means for them.
He expects Trump to make deals with Putin and that US, Russia and China will dominate trade with individual Country trade deals becoming the norm.
He said that it is likely that Trump will not intervene with Putin if he decides to annex Ukraine but that Putin will not cross into the Baltic States due to NATO.
The US are very pro UK and that the UK is respected throughout the World and seen as a place to do deals with. The US is also pleased that the UK spends 2% on defence and that Trump will expect all NATO members to step up to the plate.
There is a much bigger World than Europe and certainly when you are in Vancouver there is a large Far East influence on trade affairs
Delete your account or I'll incite a TwitMob to get you sacked
I loved Dr P's bar chart comparing our overseas aid to the EU with what we give to India.
On the other side there is a populist backlash against social liberalism on steroids, again from Trumpism but also Kipperism and strands of Blue Labourism.
Herdson is wrong as usual. Not only is calling an Election hard, its also incredibly risky. If May lost the vote she would be out. Even assuming no Tory rebels May would need at least 100 Labour MPs to vote for the end of their own careers.
The "Lets pretend we arent the Government" approach might work but again, a handful of Tory abstentions could produce a Labour Minority Government with SNP/LD backing. Pointless but embarassing & again May would be out.
Nothing is as simple or easy as Herdson believes.
The UK has had continuous trade deficits from 1998 onwards.
The UK has also had continuous tourism deficits for even longer.
Are there any other Western countries which have the continuous deficits in both trade and tourism for such an extended period ?
The Mail is simply trying to undermine the rule of law because it happens to suit its political agenda to do so at the moment. Standard Mail tactic, personal attacks and abuse of individuals that stand in its way. The Mail doesn't care what long-term damage it does in pursuit of its political objectives. Straight from the 1930s playbook. You think they might have learned their lesson but I suspect they believe their time has come again.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/153983095494/jeremy-corbyn-speech-to-the-party-of-european
Lost 20 years of Central European 20th Century History.
Give it two more elections and Lancashire, inner London and seats with very large BAME votes could be Labour's last strongholds. I wouldn't count on Wales, the North East and significant chunks of Yorkshire (where the BNP used to accumulate a lot of votes in European elections before Ukip got big) holding firm for Labour indefinitely: the Tories, Ukip and Plaid are all circling. And Bristol, Brighton, Norwich, Oxford and Cambridge all look potentially vulnerable to Green and Lib Dem attack if Labour begins to emit the stench of death.
It's not insurmountable, but the point is that the Supreme Court could decide that the legislation required for Article 50 is reasonably complex. If it is, that delays things in itself, and gives a lot of scope for amendment by the Lords.
It MAY be that the Supreme Court sees a virtual one-liner as legally appropriate (or they may be silent on the matter). But the presumption that it will be, "This House agrees the Government should trigger Article 50 now" (or something not much longer) may well be misplaced.
Herdson is correct. As a last resort, the Government can resign and then the Right can vote down any attempt to cobble together a rainbow coalition. It would be a ridiculous pantomime, but one that could be blamed - with considerable justification - on the Liberal Democrats. There are no plausible circumstances under which this would lead to an alternative Government being installed rather than a new election.
I am sure that the inhabitants of a former Soviet slave state are thrilled at being lectured at concerning the joys of socialism. Another reminder of why the death of the Labour Party can't come about soon enough (and also why it probably won't happen - too good to be true.)