She's also poor at interviews....she's just nervous and not confident, and probably struggles with anxiety. Gordon Brown struggled as PM too.
The more I look at May, the more I question why she has put herself through this. She clearly does not enjoy it and she is not narcissistic. She probably overthinks everything.
I hate myself for saying this, but Boris would probably been better. His cavalier, bombastic, entitled attitude would have been better for for the post Brexit fallout.
That's my conclusion. We should have gone for Boris.
May shows signs of Asperger's to me.
EU leaders would have screwed Boris with the utmost relish and he has limited attention span
But he would have laughed them off. And he would cheer everyone up.
Brexit doesn't need detailed micro-management (which is what May is supposedly doing). It need a bit of elan, lots of political charm, and the ability to delegate to very smart people.
Boris was a brilliant and very successful editor at the Spectator, who set the tone for the magazine and hired the best writers on instinct (e.g. me). That's exactly what we need now, a brilliant editor.
He would have guaranteed the hardest of Brexit's, it is difficult to underestimate how much EU leaders loathe Boris. May is a much tougher negotiator and less toxic. She is needed now, in 5 or 10 years time once we are out then Boris may have his time again
"If I were a Labour strategist I would be having him on the TV as much as I could from here on in."
I I were a Corbynite, I'd be doing the same. Poor old Bonehead can't really get any worse in the view of the general public (his acolytes don't have too many brain cells to spare anyway).
His only hope is that the chorus of condemnation brings out the pity reflex in the voters. "Ah ... poor dear, he's doing his best and all he gets is nastiness in return."
There's even the possibility that he accidentally makes sense one day and surprises on the up-side.
And as been said elsewhere, Mrs May makes John Major look exciting.
John Major won the 1992 election and Corbyn is worse than Kinnock
Is Corbyn the worst party leader in British history? Got to be a leading contender.
If he does worse than Foot did for Labour certainly though the Duke of Wellington was probably the worst overall but then he saved Europe from Napoleon which somewhat makes up for it!
orbyn doesn't deserve to lace Foot's boots. Foot was a great orator,. writer, thinker. To see Corbyn hiding behind the likes of Chakrabarti, Thronberry and Abbot says it all about him.
IDS compares to Corbyn....but at least IDS knew his time was up
Foot had many talents but he was trounced in 1983 winning just 28% and 209 seats putting Labour in a worse place than Callaghan had left it. As party leader he was a disaster.
Callaghan was also a disastrous party leader. He mistimed the calling of the 78/79 election and then stayed on far too long as Opposition leader thereby costing Healey the leadership.
"If I were a Labour strategist I would be having him on the TV as much as I could from here on in."
I I were a Corbynite, I'd be doing the same. Poor old Bonehead can't really get any worse in the view of the general public (his acolytes don't have too many brain cells to spare anyway).
His only hope is that the chorus of condemnation brings out the pity reflex in the voters. "Ah ... poor dear, he's doing his best and all he gets is nastiness in return."
There's even the possibility that he accidentally makes sense one day and surprises on the up-side.
And as been said elsewhere, Mrs May makes John Major look exciting.
John Major won the 1992 election and Corbyn is worse than Kinnock
Is Corbyn the worst party leader in British history? Got to be a leading contender.
Since the war, without question. Miliband is the second worst.
Assuming the definition of success as a party leader is someone who materially improves the fortunes of the party beyond what might naturally be expected and ideally leaves it in a better place...
IMO Major and Milliband are amongst the worst. The former, despite winning 92, put his party out of power for a generation and the latter made Corbyn possible.
Major is nowhere near the worst, he won an unprecedented 4th term for the Tories. Hague in 2001 did worse than Miliband, Gaitskill in 1959 did worse than Attlee in 1955, Callaghan worse than Wilson, Brown far worse than Blair
Hague gained seats (well, a seat, net); Miliband lost them.
They're probably much-of-a-muchness in reality. Both reformed their parties' leadership elections to ill effect (though Hague's effort did at least include a sensible ejection system).
Hague set the way for IDS and Miliband the way for Corbyn, as you say they are two of a kind
Looking at the actual text of the report by a 'former British intelligence operative' on the alleged Russian activity, there is something rather odd about the language. It doesn't read to me as though it were written by a native English speaker experienced in writing reports. For example (page 4):
FSB often uses coercion and blackmail to recruit most capable cyber operatives in Russia into its state-sponsored programmes. Heavy use also, both wittingly and unwittingly, of CIS emigres working in western corporations and ethnic Russians employed by neighbouring governments e.g. Latvia.
That's from a summary, though. Most of the document isn't in such semi-telegraphese.
But are we sure it's the actual document? I have known occasions when a document has surfaced and another document that is similar to it many respects but has been given a few twists has also surfaced, within about an hour or so.
There are some references to a person codenamed 'alpha' in the document, who supposedly is blackmailing Putin, or at least holds compromising information on him. I find it hard to believe a person would be alive given Putin's power.
The version I've got refers to "Alpha", an unusual transliteration for what is usually called the Alfa Group, which owns Alfa Bank, Russia's largest private bank. (This is not the same as Alpha Bank, which is Greek.) Big figures at it include the oligarchs Mikhail Fridman (who also holds Israeli citizenship) and Pyotr Aven. Alfa has a British arm, and Aven is a trustee of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, headquartered in London.
There are quite a few incongruous things in the language in the report like missing articles - a classic mistake made by native Russian speakers - and also the hints of the author's anti-Semitism.
I think the only places where articles are missed out are in the summary sections, written in semi-telegraphese. I couldn't find any non-native usage of commas before "that", or other Russophone giveaways. Alfa's Fridman is described by the Jewish publication "Forward" as being close to Netanyahu.
She's also poor at interviews....she's just nervous and not confident, and probably struggles with anxiety. Gordon Brown struggled as PM too.
The more I look at May, the more I question why she has put herself through this. She clearly does not enjoy it and she is not narcissistic. She probably overthinks everything.
I hate myself for saying this, but Boris would probably been better. His cavalier, bombastic, entitled attitude would have been better for for the post Brexit fallout.
That's my conclusion. We should have gone for Boris.
May shows signs of Asperger's to me.
I am not sure I see Apergers in May, but clearly she suffers from nerves on occasion.
I can see why someone would feel they had to do it to stop Boris. But why then give him a job?
Of all the peculiar and unexpected things that happened in 2016 (and it was a bumper year) Gove's attack on Boris on the day he was supposed to be announcing his candidature for leader is probably the most strange and unexplained. He would have been Chancellor for goodness sake and I have little doubt he would have been better at it than the dismal bank manager.
Reading Dominic's long piece referred to yesterday (which I have finally caught up with) amongst the carnage on both sides Boris and Gove both stand out as intelligent, disciplined and focussed. Boris and Gove or May and Hammond? I know what I would have chosen.
BBC Archive #OTD 1972: William Woollard eulogised over a 'glass' car on Tomorrow's World. It wasn't for sale. Oh Woollard, you awful tease! https://t.co/pQdlVK7oHM
I think the only places where articles are missed out are in the summary sections, written in semi-telegraphese. I couldn't find any non-native usage of commas before "that", or other Russophone giveaways. Alfa's Fridman is described by the Jewish publication "Forward" as being close to Netanyahu.
Some former intelligence staffers are even more dubious. “Bluntly, it looks like an ex-field officer who’s got some interesting sources, but who has no idea how to compile raw HUMINT into usable intelligence,” says Matt Tait, a former staffer of Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency.
Could it be that the ex-MI6 guy has been spun a yarn by anti-Putin elements within Russia (who would surely see a good relationship between Trump and Putin as a threat)?
I can understand American lefties being traumatised by the scale of their loss - but the reaction is unhinged. They're busy, unwittingly, nailing on Trump's 2020 victory.
"Incoming counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway on Tuesday denied that President-elect Trump was verbally briefed by heads of intelligence agencies last Friday about a report that Russian operatives may have personal and financial information about him.
The former Trump campaign manager called out intelligence officials for not briefing Trump on the newest development in their investigation of Russian hacking of U.S. entities."
Who knows what truth is any more? I feel the story is true, so it's true.
It is sour grapes, bad losers syndrome.
I have to say that, regardless of disagreements I may have with her on policy issues or her choice of employer, I have huge respect for Kellyanne Conway. Personally, her comment that the intel community did not brief Trump on the personal allegations against him rings far truer than the material in a portfolio hawked around by an ex-spy with a profit incentive.
That said, I will keep an open mind on the allegations pending further investigations by more credible sources. [Even though the ex-spy is said to have done credible work in the past, working for your country for a fixed and decent salary within MI6 with all the peer review of your work is a very different context than being self-employed and having to sell your product in order to have an income].
"If I were a Labour strategist I would be having him on the TV as much as I could from here on in."
I I were a Corbynite, I'd be doing the same. Poor old Bonehead can't really get any worse in the view of the general public (his acolytes don't have too many brain cells to spare anyway).
His only hope is that the chorus of condemnation brings out the pity reflex in the voters. "Ah ... poor dear, he's doing his best and all he gets is nastiness in return."
There's even the possibility that he accidentally makes sense one day and surprises on the up-side.
And as been said elsewhere, Mrs May makes John Major look exciting.
John Major won the 1992 election and Corbyn is worse than Kinnock
Is Corbyn the worst party leader in British history? Got to be a leading contender.
If he does worse than Foot did for Labour certainly though the Duke of Wellington was probably the worst overall but then he saved Europe from Napoleon which somewhat makes up for it!
Worst party leader in British history? Asquith. Took over a party with a landslide majority. Left a wreck with 40 seats. It has never recovered.
Lloyd George was at least as much to blame for that as Asquith who had managed to retain office following the two elections of 1910.The World War 1 split and the extension of the franchise doomed the Liberals rather than his leadership.
I disagree. Asquith was forced out for the same reason as Aberdeen or Chamberlain: they were poor war-leaders. LG might have been more than a little complicit in that Westminster coup but it was one that was both needed and popular. However, having been ousted as PM, Asquith should have resigned as Liberal leader too once it was clear that LG could sustain his government. His hanging on to that office was critical in the Liberal split.
I don't agree that the extension of the franchise doomed the Liberals. They could easily have kept Labour as the minor party associate they were pre-WWI had the split not given them the opening (as well as forcing LG to ally with the Tories and hence also provide space for Labour on the left). A united Liberal party under LG would have dominated the 1918 general election and might quite easily have killed off the pacifist Labour party.
Of all the peculiar and unexpected things that happened in 2016 (and it was a bumper year) Gove's attack on Boris on the day he was supposed to be announcing his candidature for leader is probably the most strange and unexplained. He would have been Chancellor for goodness sake and I have little doubt he would have been better at it than the dismal bank manager.
Reading Dominic's long piece referred to yesterday (which I have finally caught up with) amongst the carnage on both sides Boris and Gove both stand out as intelligent, disciplined and focussed. Boris and Gove or May and Hammond? I know what I would have chosen.
The latter have a chance of a reasonable Brexit, the former would have guaranteed hard Brexit
Corbyn really is the worst political leader in memory...and by a country mile.
HUYUD...Good point on Boris; he's politically toxic in Europe....
and Big G.......you are right....there is no alternative to May, certainly no better alternative at the minute. My point was she just doesn't look like someone who is enjoying her job too much..Like Gordon Brown...all that ambition and posturing, only to find you are anxious, miserable, irritable and it doesn't make you happy.
At least Corbyn looks like he sleeps well.....
I was pleased when May became leader, particularly given the other candidates. She seems decent enough, experienced, not clearly bonkers, and says the right words.
But I feel desperately sorry for her. I think she is out of her depth and not enjoying the job at all. She is also injecting four times a day and can no longer nibble food surreptitiously in the chamber. How long will she last? Possibly until 2020 but I think it will take a big toll on her health.
There is nothing shameful about diabetes. Why would she not be able to nibble during meetings and while working? Anyone with a problem with that shouldn't be working in positions that require work interaction with a PM.
Of course there is nothing shameful about diabetes! My reference to surreptitiously nibbling was a quote from the linked article:
"Keeping on top of her condition has even led to her surreptitiously breaking the House of Commons' strict rules on not eating in the Chamber."
“There was one occasion when I had been expecting to go into the Chamber later, but the way the debates were drawn up meant I had to go in at 11am and I knew I wasn’t coming out till about five,” she recalls. “I had a bag of nuts in my handbag and one of my colleagues would lean forward every now and then, so that I could eat some nuts without being seen by the Speaker.”
She can't do that now. But it is a small point. The main point is that it is very tough for her, and will she last the course. There is £100 at evens on Betfair at the moment that she won't.
Seems to me a good case for having an open discussion about making the Commons a more diabetes friendly place and having a special exemption for diabetics for the no food rule.
I can understand American lefties being traumatised by the scale of their loss - but the reaction is unhinged. They're busy, unwittingly, nailing on Trump's 2020 victory.
While it may very well be a huge fabrication, I'm not sure a ZeroHedge link (which, by the way, shows a 404) is the best way of proving it.
Of all the peculiar and unexpected things that happened in 2016 (and it was a bumper year) Gove's attack on Boris on the day he was supposed to be announcing his candidature for leader is probably the most strange and unexplained. He would have been Chancellor for goodness sake and I have little doubt he would have been better at it than the dismal bank manager.
Reading Dominic's long piece referred to yesterday (which I have finally caught up with) amongst the carnage on both sides Boris and Gove both stand out as intelligent, disciplined and focussed. Boris and Gove or May and Hammond? I know what I would have chosen.
Gove and Boris are both young enough to ascend to the top jobs. As others have noted, TMay is 60, and not in tip top health, and tackling a huge and exhausting task. I reckon she could retire soon after winning a GE in 2020. If she gets that far.
I think it is inevitable that May will have a fairly short innings. But it is likely to be an extremely important one that will have a huge impact on her successor and the options available to them. We can only hope she gets it right.
"If I were a Labour strategist I would be having him on the TV as much as I could from her exciting.
John Major won the 1992 election and Corbyn is worse than Kinnock
Is Corbyn the worst party leader in British history? Got to be a leading contender.
If he does worse than Foot did for Labour certainly though the Duke of Wellington was probably the worst overall but then he saved Europe from Napoleon which somewhat makes up for it!
orbyn doesn't deserve to lace Foot's boots. Foot was a great me was up
Foot had many talents but he was trounced in 1983 winning just 28% and 209 seats putting Labour in a worse place than Callaghan had left it. As party leader he was a disaster.
Callaghan was also a disastrous party leader. He mistimed the calling of the 78/79 election and then stayed on far too long as Opposition leader thereby costing Healey the leadership.
"If I were a Labour strategist I would be having him on the TV as much as I could from here on in."
I I were a Corbynite, I'd be doing the same. Poor old Bonehead look exciting.
John Major won the 1992 election and Corbyn is worse than Kinnock
Is Corbyn the worst party leader in British history? Got to be a leading contender.
If he does worse than Foot did for Labour certainly though the Duke of Wellington was probably the worst overall but then he saved Europe from Napoleon which somewhat makes up for it!
orbyn doesn't deserve to lace Foot's boots. Foot was a great orator,. writer, thinker. To see Corbyn hiding behind the likes of Chakrabarti, Thronberry and Abbot says it all about him.
IDS compares to Corbyn....but at least IDS knew his time was up
Foot had many talents but he was trounced in 1983 winning just 28% and 209 seats putting Labour in a worse place than Callaghan had left it. As party leader he was a disaster.
Callaghan was also a disastrous party leader. He mistimed the calling of the 78/79 election and then stayed on far too long as Opposition leader thereby costing Healey the leadership.
Callaghan polled better than his party and got the best result for Labour at a general election until Blair took over
Of all the peculiar and unexpected things that happened in 2016 (and it was a bumper year) Gove's attack on Boris on the day he was supposed to be announcing his candidature for leader is probably the most strange and unexplained. He would have been Chancellor for goodness sake and I have little doubt he would have been better at it than the dismal bank manager.
Reading Dominic's long piece referred to yesterday (which I have finally caught up with) amongst the carnage on both sides Boris and Gove both stand out as intelligent, disciplined and focussed. Boris and Gove or May and Hammond? I know what I would have chosen.
But Boris was going to lose to Theresa anyway. See the YouGov polling.
She's also poor at interviews....she's just nervous and not confident, and probably struggles with anxiety. Gordon Brown struggled as PM too.
The more I look at May, the more I question why she has put herself through this. She clearly does not enjoy it and she is not narcissistic. She probably overthinks everything.
I hate myself for saying this, but Boris would probably been better. His cavalier, bombastic, entitled attitude would have been better for for the post Brexit fallout.
That's my conclusion. We should have gone for Boris.
May shows signs of Asperger's to me.
I am not sure I see Apergers in May, but clearly she suffers from nerves on occasion.
I can see why someone would feel they had to do it to stop Boris. But why then give him a job?
I think that was for internal party/membership management reasons, plus to assuage any national fears of a dastardly Remainian stitch up.
I think May is a middling-good party apparatchik, who's probably driven by duty rather than cupidity. Infinitely preferable to Leadsom. She's probably the safest pair of hands we have for steering us through our exit process. Boris would undoubtedly have been more fun!
Of all the peculiar and unexpected things that happened in 2016 (and it was a bumper year) Gove's attack on Boris on the day he was supposed to be announcing his candidature for leader is probably the most strange and unexplained. He would have been Chancellor for goodness sake and I have little doubt he would have been better at it than the dismal bank manager.
Reading Dominic's long piece referred to yesterday (which I have finally caught up with) amongst the carnage on both sides Boris and Gove both stand out as intelligent, disciplined and focussed. Boris and Gove or May and Hammond? I know what I would have chosen.
Gove and Boris are both young enough to ascend to the top jobs. As others have noted, TMay is 60, and not in tip top health, and tackling a huge and exhausting task. I reckon she could retire soon after winning a GE in 2020. If she gets that far.
I think it is inevitable that May will have a fairly short innings. But it is likely to be an extremely important one that will have a huge impact on her successor and the options available to them. We can only hope she gets it right.
She could be there until 2025 if she wins in 2020 which means she outlasts Cameron. She could be a British Merkel
I still blame the GOP establishment for Trump. This election was theirs for the taking against an unpopular, tainted, already anointed, Democratic candidate. They should have had a system for weeding out someone like Trump who is totally unfit to be POTUS.
Trump is likely to do to GOP what Corbyn is doing to the Labour Party.
I actually think that it has got to the stage with Corbyn that he is becoming a Labour asset. His unpopularity is such that Labour will get a boost and a chance of a hearing just by getting rid of him. And that really is now just a matter of when, not if. Yesterday was such a clusterf*** that even his doughtiest backers are struggling to defend him.
In related news, the Momentum push to recruit lots more Unite members to help McCluskey get re-elected attracted a grand total of 659 new applications.
The problem with yesterday is that it reinforces the hardline Corbynite view that there is no point trying to play the Blairite media game since they will screw you anyway.
The of a Union Jack.
I am developing a theory on the last few months which, if I have time, I may put in front of Mike and TSE for consideration as a published piece.
Corbyn is not going anywhere and the Unite election means next to nothing after Miliband scrapped the electoral college and Corbyn was re reelected by the membership by a landslide
If Len loses the Unite leadership it will mean a hell of a lot - at a bare minimum the far left loses all hope of gaining control of the NEC and Momentum loses all the support it has had from Unite up to now. If he doesn't, he will no longer need to pander to the hard left as he will not be standing for election again. If I were a Tory strategist I would not be making the assumptions you do.
All of that is irrelevant while the members decide the leadership as unless Corbyn leaves of his own free will they will keep re electing him
At the minimum, it will mean that it will be a lot harder for Corbyn to get party rules changed. But I'd take issue with your main contention: if Unite reject Len, it might be a pointer that the membership is coming to its senses re Corbyn.
I can understand American lefties being traumatised by the scale of their loss - but the reaction is unhinged. They're busy, unwittingly, nailing on Trump's 2020 victory.
While it may very well be a huge fabrication, I'm not sure a ZeroHedge link (which, by the way, shows a 404) is the best way of proving it.
However, isnt the point about "blackmail" that the victim cracks for fear of revelation.
With this stuff all flowing around in the ether and no-one knowing what to believe, I'd say there's a chance this helps Trump.
He can deny just about everything from now on and if someone eventually comes up with a photo, well it's old news. And as we have seen he's an eye for an eye person if you publish that photo he'll seek his pound of flesh so you've just shot yourself in the foot.
Maybe, maybe not. They killed the Champion Stakes stone dead (IMO) by moving it to that supermarket Ascot.
Each track has its own character and the races there evolve to be associated with that character. A King George involves them coming round the far turn and then racing on on the flat over the last three fences over nearly a mile with the race being played out over who jumps those fences the better. We all remember the great finishes there as a result.
At Sandown, they come round the corner, jump the pond fence, then have one more fence and a short, uphill run-in.
Completely different.
The point of the King George is it provides the exact opposite test to the Gold Cup. The horse that can win both deserves to be champion as they will have demonstrated versatility in terms of track, jumping and perhaps ground conditions as well.
I agree Sandown isn't the right choice - I would move it to Huntingdon which already races on Boxing Day and is a JCR owned track. Yes, they would have to upgrade the track and facilities but for me it fits the requirement of being different from Cheltenham but not as far removed from Kempton as Sandown is
Another alternative would be Wincanton - a JCR track already racing on Boxing Day.
Sorry late to this but yes absolutely agree - Huntingdon or Wincanton both flat galloping tracks. Can't see it happening. These days the racing is more about the concert afterwards than the races. Apart from a couple of meetings of which this was ofc one.
She's also poor at interviews....she's just nervous and not confident, and probably struggles with anxiety. Gordon Brown struggled as PM too.
The more I look at May, the more I question why she has put herself through this. She clearly does not enjoy it and she is not narcissistic. She probably overthinks everything.
I hate myself for saying this, but Boris would probably been better. His cavalier, bombastic, entitled attitude would have been better for for the post Brexit fallout.
That's my conclusion. We should have gone for Boris.
May shows signs of Asperger's to me.
Boris was too disorganised and unsure of himself to be PM.
He'd be a good figurehead in war time but not for this. It requires attention to detail, mastery of a brief and a good poker face.
May is probably good enough. And Hammond is a competent number two.
But I'd feel better with Gove working with Davis (and Cummings)
I can understand American lefties being traumatised by the scale of their loss - but the reaction is unhinged. They're busy, unwittingly, nailing on Trump's 2020 victory.
Whatever else Trump is, he is a hilarious embarrassment, in so many ways, to the United States of America.
I think that is the purpose of the fake stories isn't it? Lefties happy to let America be a laughing stock as long as it damages their dementor. Trump can be a vengeful boss I have heard - they may not enjoy this behaviour so much after Jan 20.
Out of interest - what is the PB commentariat opinion: Which is more embarrasing for a national leader: 1. Get drunk and pay a whore to piss on a bed; or 2. Get drunk and put your schlong in a dead pig's head.
She's also poor at interviews....she's just nervous and not confident, and probably struggles with anxiety. Gordon Brown struggled as PM too.
The more I look at May, the more I question why she has put herself through this. She clearly does not enjoy it and she is not narcissistic. She probably overthinks everything.
I hate myself for saying this, but Boris would probably been better. His cavalier, bombastic, entitled attitude would have been better for for the post Brexit fallout.
That's my conclusion. We should have gone for Boris.
May shows signs of Asperger's to me.
Boris was too disorganised and unsure of himself to be PM.
He'd be a good figurehead in war time but not for this. It requires attention to detail, mastery of a brief and a good poker face.
May is probably good enough. And Hammond is a competent number two.
But I'd feel better with Gove working with Davis (and Cummings)
Yes, this is the Treaty of Versailles not the Battle of Britain!
I still blame the GOP establishment for Trump. This election was theirs for the taking against an unpopular, tainted, already anointed, Democratic candidate. They should have had a system for weeding out someone like Trump who is totally unfit to be POTUS.
Trump is likely to do to GOP what Corbyn is doing to the Labour Party.
I actually think that it has got to the stage with Corbyn that he is becoming a Labour asset. His unpopularity is such that Labour will get a boost and a chance of a hearing just by getting rid of him. And that really is now just a matter of when, not if. Yesterday was such a clusterf*** that even his doughtiest backers are struggling to defend him.
In related news, the Momentum push to recruit lots more Unite members to help McCluskey get re-elected attracted a grand total of 659 new applications.
The problem with yesterday is that it reinforces the hardline Corbynite view that there is no point trying to play the Blairite media game since they will screw you anyway.
The of a Union Jack.
I am developing a theory on the last few months which, if I have time, I may put in front of Mike and TSE for consideration as a published piece.
Corbyn is not going anywhere and the Unite election means next to nothing after Miliband scrapped the electoral college and Corbyn was re reelected by the membership by a landslide
If Len loses the Unite leadership it will mean a hell of a lot - at a bare minimum the far left loses all hope of gaining control of the NEC and Momentum loses all the support it has had from Unite up to now. If he doesn't, he will no longer need to pander to the hard left as he will not be standing for election again. If I were a Tory strategist I would not be making the assumptions you do.
All of that is irrelevant while the members decide the leadership as unless Corbyn leaves of his own free will they will keep re electing him
At the minimum, it will mean that it will be a lot harder for Corbyn to get party rules changed. But I'd take issue with your main contention: if Unite reject Len, it might be a pointer that the membership is coming to its senses re Corbyn.
No as Labour members tend to be bourgeois hippies, Unite members working class and more concerned about having someone fight for their working conditions
Of all the peculiar and unexpected things that happened in 2016 (and it was a bumper year) Gove's attack on Boris on the day he was supposed to be announcing his candidature for leader is probably the most strange and unexplained. He would have been Chancellor for goodness sake and I have little doubt he would have been better at it than the dismal bank manager.
Reading Dominic's long piece referred to yesterday (which I have finally caught up with) amongst the carnage on both sides Boris and Gove both stand out as intelligent, disciplined and focussed. Boris and Gove or May and Hammond? I know what I would have chosen.
Yes... I think there is more to come on why Gove ddi what he did. Doesn't add up at the moment. That long piece from Cummings is fantastic and packed with insights.
I can understand American lefties being traumatised by the scale of their loss - but the reaction is unhinged. They're busy, unwittingly, nailing on Trump's 2020 victory.
While it may very well be a huge fabrication, I'm not sure a ZeroHedge link (which, by the way, shows a 404) is the best way of proving it.
However, isnt the point about "blackmail" that the victim cracks for fear of revelation.
With this stuff all flowing around in the ether and no-one knowing what to believe, I'd say there's a chance this helps Trump.
He can deny just about everything from now on and if someone eventually comes up with a photo, well it's old news. And as we have seen he's an eye for an eye person if you publish that photo he'll seek his pound of flesh so you've just shot yourself in the foot.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump pulled a Hogan Gawker and killed Buzzfeed.
I can understand American lefties being traumatised by the scale of their loss - but the reaction is unhinged. They're busy, unwittingly, nailing on Trump's 2020 victory.
While it may very well be a huge fabrication, I'm not sure a ZeroHedge link (which, by the way, shows a 404) is the best way of proving it.
However, isnt the point about "blackmail" that the victim cracks for fear of revelation.
With this stuff all flowing around in the ether and no-one knowing what to believe, I'd say there's a chance this helps Trump.
He can deny just about everything from now on and if someone eventually comes up with a photo, well it's old news. And as we have seen he's an eye for an eye person if you publish that photo he'll seek his pound of flesh so you've just shot yourself in the foot.
A lot of body parts in your triple metaphor and I can understand why
IDS compares to Corbyn....but at least IDS knew his time was up
Foot had many talents but he was trounced in 1983 winning just 28% and 209 seats putting Labour in a worse place than Callaghan had left it. As party leader he was a disaster.
Callaghan was also a disastrous party leader. He mistimed the calling of the 78/79 election and then stayed on far too long as Opposition leader thereby costing Healey the leadership.
Callaghan polled better than his party and got the best result for Labour at a general election until Blair took over
That is rather beside the point. He let his part down badly with his misjudgements. He might have won an election in Autumn 1978 - and had he resigned in Autumn 1979 or Spring 1980 he would have been succeeded by Healey.Moreover having made the disastrous election timing error in September 1978 he failed to even try to make up for it by reaching a deal with the Ulster Unionists to save his Government at the time of the No Confidence Vote in March 1979. That was the least he owed his party to make up for his timing cock-up! Moreover, his failings do not end there. Following the Government's defeat on March 28th , Callaghan could reasonably have delayed Polling Day to June 7th - rather than May 3rd - to coincide with the first direct European Parliament elections. That would have made the Common Market a much more prominent campaign issue at a time when Labour was the more Euro sceptic party and a further gap of five weeks would have elapsed since the Winter Of Discontent. That could well have cut the Tory lead on polling day to 2 or 3% and ensured another Hung Parliament. The Tories would have screamed outrage about such a delay - but there were 19th century precedents and that storm would have passed quickly. Even better ,when in days leading up to the Confidence Vote on 28th March defeat looked likely - as it did! - why did he not troop along to the Palace on March 25th or 26th and ask for a Dissolution to enable an election to be held on June 7th. Had he done that he would have outmanouvred the Tories and the Confidence Vote assumed less significance! Harold Wilson would have thought of such things.
Re - Callaghan That is rather beside the point. He let his party down badly with his misjudgements. He might have won an election in Autumn 1978 - and had he resigned in Autumn 1979 or Spring 1980 he would have been succeeded by Healey.Moreover having made the disastrous election timing error in September 1978 he failed to even try to make up for it by reaching a deal with the Ulster Unionists to save his Government at the time of the No Confidence Vote in March 1979. That was the least he owed his party to make up for his timing cock-up! Moreover, his failings do not end there. Following the Government's defeat on March 28th , Callaghan could reasonably have delayed Polling Day to June 7th - rather than May 3rd - to coincide with the first direct European Parliament elections. That would have made the Common Market a much more prominent campaign issue at a time when Labour was the more Euro sceptic party and a further gap of five weeks would have elapsed since the Winter Of Discontent. That could well have cut the Tory lead on polling day to 2 or 3% and ensured another Hung Parliament. The Tories would have screamed outrage about such a delay - but there were 19th century precedents and that storm would have passed quickly. Even better ,when in days leading up to the Confidence Vote on 28th March defeat looked likely - as it did! - why did he not troop along to the Palace on March 25th or 26th and ask for a Dissolution to enable an election to be held on June 7th. Had he done that he would have outmanouvred the Tories and the Confidence Vote assumed less significance! Harold Wilson would have thought of such things
The last time we had a laddish culture in the mid 90's it was amost immediately followed by a period of almost repressive political correctness. It was epitomised in the UK by Men Behaving Badly and the start up of various 'Lads Mags'. Poor old Martin Clunes had to revive his career by playing a country doctor and the rest of the cast didn't revive theirs at all
I can't remember any leader of a country being seen as quite such a vulgarian. Even Berlusconi who comes closest was known to have a personal charm which isn't something you could accuse Donald of having. The zeitgeist can quickly turn and what seems like the Theatre of the Absurd might soon repulse. So like like SeanT says enjoy America's humiliation while you can.
Re - Callaghan That is rather beside the point. He let his party down badly with his misjudgements. He might have won an election in Autumn 1978 - and had he resigned in Autumn 1979 or Spring 1980 he would have been succeeded by Healey.Moreover having made the disastrous election timing error in September 1978 he failed to even try to make up for it by reaching a deal with the Ulster Unionists to save his Government at the time of the No Confidence Vote in March 1979. That was the least he owed his party to make up for his timing cock-up! Moreover, his failings do not end there. Following the Government's defeat on March 28th , Callaghan could reasonably have delayed Polling Day to June 7th - rather than May 3rd - to coincide with the first direct European Parliament elections. That would have made the Common Market a much more prominent campaign issue at a time when Labour was the more Euro sceptic party and a further gap of five weeks would have elapsed since the Winter Of Discontent. That could well have cut the Tory lead on polling day to 2 or 3% and ensured another Hung Parliament. The Tories would have screamed outrage about such a delay - but there were 19th century precedents and that storm would have passed quickly. Even better ,when in days leading up to the Confidence Vote on 28th March defeat looked likely - as it did! - why did he not troop along to the Palace on March 25th or 26th and ask for a Dissolution to enable an election to be held on June 7th. Had he done that he would have outmanouvred the Tories and the Confidence Vote assumed less significance! Harold Wilson would have thought of such things
Harold Wilson knew how to handle a referendum as well.
Re - Callaghan That is rather beside the point. He let his party down badly with his misjudgements. He might have won an election in Autumn 1978 - and had he resigned in Autumn 1979 or Spring 1980 he would have been succeeded by Healey.Moreover having made the disastrous election timing error in September 1978 he failed to even try to make up for it by reaching a deal with the Ulster Unionists to save his Government at the time of the No Confidence Vote in March 1979. That was the least he owed his party to make up for his timing cock-up! Moreover, his failings do not end there. Following the Government's defeat on March 28th , Callaghan could reasonably have delayed Polling Day to June 7th - rather than May 3rd - to coincide with the first direct European Parliament elections. That would have made the Common Market a much more prominent campaign issue at a time when Labour was the more Euro sceptic party and a further gap of five weeks would have elapsed since the Winter Of Discontent. That could well have cut the Tory lead on polling day to 2 or 3% and ensured another Hung Parliament. The Tories would have screamed outrage about such a delay - but there were 19th century precedents and that storm would have passed quickly. Even better ,when in days leading up to the Confidence Vote on 28th March defeat looked likely - as it did! - why did he not troop along to the Palace on March 25th or 26th and ask for a Dissolution to enable an election to be held on June 7th. Had he done that he would have outmanouvred the Tories and the Confidence Vote assumed less significance! Harold Wilson would have thought of such things
Most of that hypothetical and absolutely none of that disputes the point that electorally he was the best Labour leader until Blair
Comments
Is Putin the patsy?
Reading Dominic's long piece referred to yesterday (which I have finally caught up with) amongst the carnage on both sides Boris and Gove both stand out as intelligent, disciplined and focussed. Boris and Gove or May and Hammond? I know what I would have chosen.
#OTD 1972: William Woollard eulogised over a 'glass' car on Tomorrow's World. It wasn't for sale. Oh Woollard, you awful tease! https://t.co/pQdlVK7oHM
Some former intelligence staffers are even more dubious. “Bluntly, it looks like an ex-field officer who’s got some interesting sources, but who has no idea how to compile raw HUMINT into usable intelligence,” says Matt Tait, a former staffer of Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency.
Could it be that the ex-MI6 guy has been spun a yarn by anti-Putin elements within Russia (who would surely see a good relationship between Trump and Putin as a threat)?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-10/
I can understand American lefties being traumatised by the scale of their loss - but the reaction is unhinged. They're busy, unwittingly, nailing on Trump's 2020 victory.
I have to say that, regardless of disagreements I may have with her on policy issues or her choice of employer, I have huge respect for Kellyanne Conway. Personally, her comment that the intel community did not brief Trump on the personal allegations against him rings far truer than the material in a portfolio hawked around by an ex-spy with a profit incentive.
That said, I will keep an open mind on the allegations pending further investigations by more credible sources. [Even though the ex-spy is said to have done credible work in the past, working for your country for a fixed and decent salary within MI6 with all the peer review of your work is a very different context than being self-employed and having to sell your product in order to have an income].
I don't agree that the extension of the franchise doomed the Liberals. They could easily have kept Labour as the minor party associate they were pre-WWI had the split not given them the opening (as well as forcing LG to ally with the Tories and hence also provide space for Labour on the left). A united Liberal party under LG would have dominated the 1918 general election and might quite easily have killed off the pacifist Labour party.
I think May is a middling-good party apparatchik, who's probably driven by duty rather than cupidity. Infinitely preferable to Leadsom. She's probably the safest pair of hands we have for steering us through our exit process. Boris would undoubtedly have been more fun!
With this stuff all flowing around in the ether and no-one knowing what to believe, I'd say there's a chance this helps Trump.
He can deny just about everything from now on and if someone eventually comes up with a photo, well it's old news. And as we have seen he's an eye for an eye person if you publish that photo he'll seek his pound of flesh so you've just shot yourself in the foot.
He'd be a good figurehead in war time but not for this. It requires attention to detail, mastery of a brief and a good poker face.
May is probably good enough. And Hammond is a competent number two.
But I'd feel better with Gove working with Davis (and Cummings)
Out of interest - what is the PB commentariat opinion: Which is more embarrasing for a national leader:
1. Get drunk and pay a whore to piss on a bed; or
2. Get drunk and put your schlong in a dead pig's head.
Likewise, if you disbelieve it, the question you should ask yourself is what it would take for you to believe it.
NEW THREAD
That long piece from Cummings is fantastic and packed with insights.
Evan McMullin, my tip for 2020 Rep nominee, was talking about this long ago.
That is rather beside the point. He let his party down badly with his misjudgements. He might have won an election in Autumn 1978 - and had he resigned in Autumn 1979 or Spring 1980 he would have been succeeded by Healey.Moreover having made the disastrous election timing error in September 1978 he failed to even try to make up for it by reaching a deal with the Ulster Unionists to save his Government at the time of the No Confidence Vote in March 1979. That was the least he owed his party to make up for his timing cock-up!
Moreover, his failings do not end there. Following the Government's defeat on March 28th , Callaghan could reasonably have delayed Polling Day to June 7th - rather than May 3rd - to coincide with the first direct European Parliament elections. That would have made the Common Market a much more prominent campaign issue at a time when Labour was the more Euro sceptic party and a further gap of five weeks would have elapsed since the Winter Of Discontent. That could well have cut the Tory lead on polling day to 2 or 3% and ensured another Hung Parliament. The Tories would have screamed outrage about such a delay - but there were 19th century precedents and that storm would have passed quickly. Even better ,when in days leading up to the Confidence Vote on 28th March defeat looked likely - as it did! - why did he not troop along to the Palace on March 25th or 26th and ask for a Dissolution to enable an election to be held on June 7th. Had he done that he would have outmanouvred the Tories and the Confidence Vote assumed less significance! Harold Wilson would have thought of such things
I can't remember any leader of a country being seen as quite such a vulgarian. Even Berlusconi who comes closest was known to have a personal charm which isn't something you could accuse Donald of having. The zeitgeist can quickly turn and what seems like the Theatre of the Absurd might soon repulse. So like like SeanT says enjoy America's humiliation while you can.
It's hilarious but it won't last