I agree. And I don't think she is up to it. But having read some of sexist snobbish bile on here this morning, I'm warming to the idea of giving the lass a chance.
never mind the h8trz, just watch that Andrew Neil interview.
I'm not too surprised by the thread header. I'd be surprised if the Conservatives didn't do the same featuring may and some of her Cabinet. Naturally, those working with and for the Conservatives seem more adept at keeping their counsel than those who don't.
Oddly enough, it's often a sign of a party in trouble that these stories (and the Lewis story) come out. I'm sure there are plenty of skeletons in the Conservative cupboard but it's in no one's interests to release them at this time.
Unlike Cicero, I don't necessarily wish Labour ill - plurality in politics is important and not even Theresa May's tent can encompass all views.
It's inevitable anyone even talked about as a Labour leader will be "scrutinised" and the slightest flaw in their back story or any speech they've ever made over the last 10 years forensically assessed for the slightest inconsistency. Unfortunately, that's politics but at the same time perhaps an argument for individuals to be proud of their inconsistencies and flaws.
Tanistry succession in ancient Scotland and Ireland was an early form of democratic monarchy and chieftanship whereby the heir apparent was chosen from eligible male heirs of the sept. The Tanist had to be sound of mind and body.
The term remains in modern usage as the Deputy PM in the Republic of Ireland is the Tanaiste.
Mr. W, by chance, I was reading about inheritance approaches for a blog (about why Welsh laws meant Scotland and England were relatively stronger) and there are some intriguing approaches. One, ultimogeniture[sp] means the youngest inherits.
Didn't the Mongolians practice that. As a youngest son, I think it a great system.
Older sons got the territories their father had conquered. The youngest got the ancestral lands. Any son could be overall ruler (Ogodei was third son of Genghis Khan).
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
We all know you've got to pretend to be slightly common these days (Blair's glottal stop, DC's Easyjet shenanigans) but, come on, RLB has gone full Phoenix Nights.
Her Dad was an Irish docker in Salford. She speaks as you'd expect!
She's not being touted as the potential manager of a FitnessFirst she is, apparently, being considered as the Labour Party's candidate to be Prime Minister of whatever is left of the United Kingdom in 2020. Given the evidence of the video above do you think there is any chance at all the swing voters in LAB-CON marginals are going to say, "You know what? Let's give Liam Gallagher's less intelligent cousin who has no fucking idea what she's talking about a go as PM."
I think British voters are far less prejudiced than many on here. They'll judge her on her competence not on how she speaks. That's why she'd be a bad choice. That said, she has certainly achieved plenty: born into a poor, working class family, got a degree, worked at some well-regarded law firms, became an MP. I don't share her politics, but I applaud her graft and grit.
You and I have a materially different idea of well regarded law firms. 2 of the 3 were/are shitshops of the bottom feeder variety. Pinsents is, thinking of posters here, variable.
Yep, my idea is of firms that get good rankings in Chambers and the Legal 500.
1 of the 3 went bust. HD doesn't get good rankings.
[Most of the major protagonists are women, including Karena, who's a sort of Thatcher, Tywin Lannister, Livia from I, Claudius character].
Is the second part of the trilogy available now? I’ve read the first on Kindle, which is a bit difficult because I want to go back and check on who was doing what to who before the action moved on a bit. I think next one of yours I read on Kindle (note the positive) I’ll keep a note of who did what to who.
I agree. And I don't think she is up to it. But having read some of sexist snobbish bile on here this morning, I'm warming to the idea of giving the lass a chance.
[I was looking at inheritances because I suddenly realise a chap I need to inherit for plot purposes might have to murder his nephews, or have nieces].
Mr. W, sounds a bit similar to the Witan of the Saxons.
King Cole, not too surprising. Edited extra bit: cheers for the clarification, incidentally.
As someone who does not wish Labour well, I could hardly be happier. The only prospective Corbyn replacement I would fear is Sir Keir Starmer, and even he has significant weaknesses. The selection suggested here is purest dross. Could it actually be that Labour actually is genuinely finished... Spineless, incoherent, leaderless and increasingly pointless.
The problem is James is that it may have come ten years too late for your lot.
Imagine how many seats Nick Clegg would have won if John McDonnell had been able to stand against Brown - and win - in 2007. Labour would have been the greatest single loss of seats by any party since 1906.
But starting from 9 MPs it's going to be a tough ask for the Oranges to replace the Reds any time soon.
I think we all see that May has very shallow support. The abandonment of any kind of EU halfway house and the determination to go all out is worrying a lot of voters. Labours collusion with that is awful tactics and a strategic disaster.
We will see what happens in the locals, but I think there is a chance that the kind of thing happening in by elections can be replicated and on those kind of swings I think some very dramatic results really could happen. Al Carmichael's comment that "Labour is not even in opposition" hits home because it's true. The fundamental problem for Labour is that Lib Dems know what they want and are clear and unapologetic about it. The fact that it is not 100% popular is actually good: Farron is not courting cheap popularity, the Lib Dems genuinely stand for Europe. Corbyn is fudging and it looks (and is) spineless.
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Does it? Seems like its stronger than ever and we're just switching to regional 2 parties.
And people don't mind fudged positions, if delivered competently. I appreciate the lds striking more unique and clear positions, not chasing the centre with everything, but those positions have limited appeal. People will still want an alternative who even doing badly will have near 200 seats, and only labour offers it. They're going nowhere, and if a new leader is better at the job, even corbyns damage might not be fatal.
I agree. And I don't think she is up to it. But having read some of sexist snobbish bile on here this morning, I'm warming to the idea of giving the lass a chance.
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
As night follows day PB Tories will trash any Labour leader candidate, Mother Theresa would have been dismissed as a virtue signaller. Deep down they now much of their ability to win a majority in 2020 rests on Corbyn still being there, someone like Dan Jarvis as leader would soon wipe the smile off their faces and they know it.
Whether the membership have the sense to go for a winner is another matter. Do you have any idea if ex members will be able to rejoin after Corbyn resigns in order to vote in the leadership election like last time? I'm still hoping the membership have the sense to go for someone like Dan Jarvis. a chance to pay up and vote
If in 2020, we have an economic downturn, and a Labour party led by either Corbyn or a Corbynite, I'm with Cicero on this one. LDs could make some spectacular gains.
King Cole, not yet (and thanks for getting Kingdom Asunder). My initial plan was for late 2017, but I'm going to bring Traitor's Prize forward if at all possible. Reasons that can't be helped mean the redraft (last major one) is being a bit delayed.
I think November/December (based on last time) is a bad time for a launch so I'd really like to publish it earlier.
I'm happy with the plot so any changes are likely to be superficial, improving language quality, expanding or contracting sections, rather than making actual storyline changes (which are the most time-consuming to do, especially in a trilogy).
[I was looking at inheritances because I suddenly realise a chap I need to inherit for plot purposes might have to murder his nephews, or have nieces].
Mr. W, sounds a bit similar to the Witan of the Saxons.
King Cole, not too surprising. Edited extra bit: cheers for the clarification, incidentally.
That said, there are almost as many exceptions as rules, in feudal and tribal systems. Much depended on local customs, and the strength of character of individuals.
One can find examples of male primogeniture, female primogeniture, equal primogeniture, ulterogeniture, splitting estates equally among children all over the world.
I agree. And I don't think she is up to it. But having read some of sexist snobbish bile on here this morning, I'm warming to the idea of giving the lass a chance.
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Possibly true. But remember David Steele said much the same in the 1980s as well - and it didn't happen then either. Sensational realignments are rare and require a complex variety of factors to all appear at once (cf Labour 1918-1929) which I just don't see at this moment.
Of course I could be wrong...
Labour is one serious split from being very close to where the Liberals were in the early 1920s. Sure, there are differences - one faction not being in coalition with the Tories, most obviously (except as perceived in Scotland) - but Labour was also in a strategically and organisationally weak place in 1918 and yet made the leap.
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
As night follows day PB Tories will trash any Labour leader candidate, Mother Theresa would have been dismissed as a virtue signaller. Deep down they now much of their ability to win a majority in 2020 rests on Corbyn still being there, someone like Dan Jarvis as leader would soon wipe the smile off their faces and they know it.
Whether the membership have the sense to go for a winner is another matter. Do you have any idea if ex members will be able to rejoin after Corbyn resigns in order to vote in the leadership election like last time? I'm still hoping the membership have the sense to go for someone like Dan Jarvis. a chance to pay up and vote
This is the revealing aspect of the story: the party is now thinking more in terms of a candidate who would be appeal to the membership rather than to the voters
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Possibly true. But remember David Steele said much the same in the 1980s as well - and it didn't happen then either. Sensational realignments are rare and require a complex variety of factors to all appear at once (cf Labour 1918-1929) which I just don't see at this moment.
Of course I could be wrong...
Labour is one serious split from being very close to where the Liberals were in the early 1920s. Sure, there are differences - one faction not being in coalition with the Tories, most obviously (except as perceived in Scotland) - but Labour was also in a strategically and organisationally weak place in 1918 and yet made the leap.
Labour had the Unions though. And the support of the Co-operative movement.
Mr. F, that's true, there are exceptions aplenty. Aethlflaed[sp] ruling in the 9th (or 10th...) century, Sichelgaita commanding troops in the 11th, Artemisia captaining a ship in the 5th century BC, Cratesipolis leading armies in Greece in the 3rd century BC etc.
For most things, I try to ground worlds in realism, so female warriors can exist but they can't be too commonplace. As you say, individual character can make a lot of difference.
Tanistry succession in ancient Scotland and Ireland was an early form of democratic monarchy and chieftanship whereby the heir apparent was chosen from eligible male heirs of the sept. The Tanist had to be sound of mind and body.
The term remains in modern usage as the Deputy PM in the Republic of Ireland is the Tanaiste.
Isn't that basically the system the Saudis use?
The Saudi system is a mixture of agnatic and tanist succession with an "Allegance Council" and a Sovereign veto and exclusion of an heir apparent as with the removal of Crown Prince Muqran in 2015.
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Possibly true. But remember David Steele said much the same in the 1980s as well - and it didn't happen then either. Sensational realignments are rare and require a complex variety of factors to all appear at once (cf Labour 1918-1929) which I just don't see at this moment.
Of course I could be wrong...
It was happening, until a foreign country invaded one of our dependencies.
Besides, history cannot really be used as a precedent for rare events.
I did note the other day that the leadership were coalescing around her. If she is the anointed one, her odds should be correspondingly short.
She will be on the ballot, but not unopposed. It is far from certain that she would win the votes.
She would certainly be opposed. But there is absolutely no certainty she would be on the ballot. Unless the rules change - which is unlikely - the chances are she will not be on the ballot.
So if Corbyn says 'I'll go if you put her on the ballot' the Labour Party will respond 'Sorry, the rules don't allow that'?
The far left is losing ground rapidly inside Labour. Corbyn is going by the end of next year. Why do a deal to hasten it by a few months?
On the subject of Lewis' military record... the fact that he was unlikely to have been in a firefight hardly disproves the fact that he might have shot a civilian. This isn't Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire.
Well, I’m sure it won’t be long before one of his team surfaces. For myself, I’m prepared to believe people who go on the record, give their names and so on. “Military sources’ suggests a bored ex-squaddy wanting another drink!
If the MSM are doing hatchet jobs on Lewis, then that suggests to me that they they are a little concerned that he might actually be able to lead a Party that could become a threat to the Tories.
The mainstream media is not only Tory leaning, it's so Tory supporting it will hatchet anyone who might make someone a threat to the tories? Ookay. One wonders how we've ever ended up with labour governments.
It is largely true and that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. It is a very real but not insurmountable problem for non-Tories. I'm sure that it is a deliberate tactic of the Tory press to try to fix a negative image of any non-Tory in the public imagination before they have a chance to establish themselves. They were slow off the mark with Clegg in 2010 but once they saw the threat the personal attacks on him were disgraceful.
Mr. F, that's true, there are exceptions aplenty. Aethlflaed[sp] ruling in the 9th (or 10th...) century, Sichelgaita commanding troops in the 11th, Artemisia captaining a ship in the 5th century BC, Cratesipolis leading armies in Greece in the 3rd century BC etc.
For most things, I try to ground worlds in realism, so female warriors can exist but they can't be too commonplace. As you say, individual character can make a lot of difference.
Edited extra bit: 4th, not 3rd century BC.
Women as bodyguards (Eowyn's role in early drafts of LOTR) spies, assassins are much more plausible than women wielding pole axes, or disabling armoured knights with Kung Fu kicks.
If in 2020, we have an economic downturn, and a Labour party led by either Corbyn or a Corbynite, I'm with Cicero on this one. LDs could make some spectacular gains.
I think that's possible, but my idea of spectacular is in a smaller range than Cicero.
I agree. And I don't think she is up to it. But having read some of sexist snobbish bile on here this morning, I'm warming to the idea of giving the lass a chance.
I agree. And I don't think she is up to it. But having read some of sexist snobbish bile on here this morning, I'm warming to the idea of giving the lass a chance.
On the subject of Lewis' military record... the fact that he was unlikely to have been in a firefight hardly disproves the fact that he might have shot a civilian. This isn't Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire.
Well, I’m sure it won’t be long before one of his team surfaces. For myself, I’m prepared to believe people who go on the record, give their names and so on. “Military sources’ suggests a bored ex-squaddy wanting another drink!
If the MSM are doing hatchet jobs on Lewis, then that suggests to me that they they are a little concerned that he might actually be able to lead a Party that could become a threat to the Tories.
The mainstream media is not only Tory leaning, it's so Tory supporting it will hatchet anyone who might make someone a threat to the tories? Ookay. One wonders how we've ever ended up with labour governments.
On the subject of Lewis' military record... the fact that he was unlikely to have been in a firefight hardly disproves the fact that he might have shot a civilian. This isn't Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire.
Well, I’m sure it won’t be long before one of his team surfaces. For myself, I’m prepared to believe people who go on the record, give their names and so on. “Military sources’ suggests a bored ex-squaddy wanting another drink!
If the MSM are doing hatchet jobs on Lewis, then that suggests to me that they they are a little concerned that he might actually be able to lead a Party that could become a threat to the Tories.
The mainstream media is not only Tory leaning, it's so Tory supporting it will hatchet anyone who might make someone a threat to the tories? Ookay. One wonders how we've ever ended up with labour governments.
The only Labour Prime Minister elected in the last 50 years is Tony Blair, a person described by Margaret Thatcher as her greatest acheivement and someone who would have been quite at home in the Tory Party.
They have to have a Labour Party elected now and again, it helps to deflect criticism. We are still hearing about how Labour's mismanagement nearly ten years ago has created the financial mess we are currently in.
Wilson in '74
Correct! Need more coffee!!!!!
Though Blair is the only one to win a working majority in that time.
Mr. W, sounds a bit similar to the Witan of the Saxons.
Similar - The Witan was a council of the nobility and high office holders whereas the Tanist was elected strictly from the wider male family of the Clan.
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford (actually Chester, ed) accent.
Yes, from many of the same people who told us WWC Leavers were salt of the earth and waste several million pixels a day rattling about the metropolitan elite. Selective snobbery.
The WWC were just the cannon fodder for the Tory right on Brexit, they were always expendable once they had served their purpose.
If in 2020, we have an economic downturn, and a Labour party led by either Corbyn or a Corbynite, I'm with Cicero on this one. LDs could make some spectacular gains.
I think that's possible, but my idea of spectacular is in a smaller range than Cicero.
I should make clear what I'm arguing against is the oft-expressed notion that there's a 25-30 seat ceiling for them.
I did note the other day that the leadership were coalescing around her. If she is the anointed one, her odds should be correspondingly short.
She will be on the ballot, but not unopposed. It is far from certain that she would win the votes.
She would certainly be opposed. But there is absolutely no certainty she would be on the ballot. Unless the rules change - which is unlikely - the chances are she will not be on the ballot.
So if Corbyn says 'I'll go if you put her on the ballot' the Labour Party will respond 'Sorry, the rules don't allow that'?
The far left is losing ground rapidly inside Labour. Corbyn is going by the end of next year. Why do a deal to hasten it by a few months?
On the subject of Lewis' military record... the fact that he was unlikely to have been in a firefight hardly disproves the fact that he might have shot a civilian. This isn't Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire.
Well, I’m sure it won’t be long before one of his team surfaces. For myself, I’m prepared to believe people who go on the record, give their names and so on. “Military sources’ suggests a bored ex-squaddy wanting another drink!
If the MSM are doing hatchet jobs on Lewis, then that suggests to me that they they are a little concerned that he might actually be able to lead a Party that could become a threat to the Tories.
The mainstream media is not only Tory leaning, it's so Tory supporting it will hatchet anyone who might make someone a threat to the tories? Ookay. One wonders how we've ever ended up with labour governments.
It is largely true and that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. It is a very real but not insurmountable problem for non-Tories. I'm sure that it is a deliberate tactic of the Tory press to try to fix a negative image of any non-Tory in the public imagination before they have a chance to establish themselves. They were slow off the mark with Clegg in 2010 but once they saw the threat the personal attacks on him were disgraceful.
Bizarre, if unsurprising given the ridiculousness of the Corbynite project, that Long-Bailey is being touted as leader. I almost feel sorry for her. Ordinarily we'd have yet to have heard of her as she learnt her craft as an MP, maybe stepping up to become a bag carrier, learned how to prepare for and get through tough interviews on local radio and TV before making the step up. She might have eventually become a very good Shadow Minister and then had a chance at running for leader. As it is, even if she wins she'll either preside over the death of the Labour Party or her own Corbynista faction. If she were to become leader she'd have a choice - either appoint much more experienced moderate MPs back and accept their counsel, unifying the PLP but enraging the Corbynistas, who'd largely cry betrayal and depart, or keep on as continuity Corbyn fishing in the shallow talent pool of the ideologically pure and get thumped at the next election as an inexperienced plant from the hard left tainted by the very association that got her the job. That would signal to moderates that Corbyn wasn't an aberration but a sign the party was no longer fit for purpose. Labour isn't likely to split atm because even the least tribal and most furious moderates know it's electoral suicide, but there comes a point where Corbyn and co will have killed off the traditional Labour Party anyway, the love is gone and you might as well take a punt. If Macron wins in May and Labour look like becoming a permanent vessel for Corbynism, I'd imagine some will explore the possibility of heading up a similar liberal counter-revolutionary movement.
The spotlight on Corbyn and Labour has distracted attention from the lib Dems. Despite the ramping, they've not made much progress and Farron seems a bit of a novelty act.
Because of the wide variation in "Don't Knows", I think it makes more sense to look at the favourables as a % of those who express an opinion one way or the other..
May 65% Johnson 46% Davis 37% Hammond 34% Bercow 33% Farron 30% Farage 28% Corbyn 27% Trump 17% Putin 9%
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Possibly true. But remember David Steele said much the same in the 1980s as well - and it didn't happen then either. Sensational realignments are rare and require a complex variety of factors to all appear at once (cf Labour 1918-1929) which I just don't see at this moment.
Of course I could be wrong...
Labour is one serious split from being very close to where the Liberals were in the early 1920s. Sure, there are differences - one faction not being in coalition with the Tories, most obviously (except as perceived in Scotland) - but Labour was also in a strategically and organisationally weak place in 1918 and yet made the leap.
Labour had the Unions though. And the support of the Co-operative movement.
True. But then they also had the PR difficulties of the Russian revoution to deal with. (IIRC, there was no British Communist party until 1920).
Imagine how popular TM the PM (+9) would be if she wasn't hand-in-hand with him!
I suspect May benefits from being up against the worst leader of any major political party in British history.
Maybe. I was speaking w my Mum about politics on Friday. She is a Labour voter who voted Remain and was having a pop at me for slagging off Billy Bragg on QT. She would never vote Conservative in a million years and takes every opportunity to have a dig at them, but she defended May over her American trip, saying if she didn't go people would say she was upsetting our closest ally etc, and the hand holding thing was just ridiculous, what was she supposed to do?
Blamed it all on Cameron for leaving her a crap hand
May has the best "favourable" numbers, so I doubt it is just the fact she is against Corbyn. Maybe people like her? If my mum likes a Tory leader, Labour should be worried!
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
It's only a tiny fraction of that inspired by David Cameron's and George Osborne's enunciation and associated background.
Except that:
1. Cameron and people from his background have ruled this country almost permanently for at least a century. Part of the criticism was because of over representation
2. Cameron tried to be something he wasn't
1. Wrong
Cameron hailed from a successful stockbroking family. Very specific genus
Can't think of any previous PM that was remotely similar.
Brown and May - church families Blair, Atlee - law Major - self made Thatcher - solid middle class Don't know Callaghan or Eden Wilson was an academic Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Churchill were from a far posher background Baldwin (I think), Bonor Law and Chamberlain were industrialists
Heath probably the closest.
Basically stockbrokers make crap leaders because they don't actually make or do anything: they are just in client relationship management.
Ridiculous post! His father was a stockbroker. He was an account exec. If you think there is such a thing as a 'Stockbroking gene' then I can only think it is a by-product of having your name put down for Eton aged 7 weeks because someone thought it was the best way of creating you in their image
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
It's only a tiny fraction of that inspired by David Cameron's and George Osborne's enunciation and associated background.
Except that:
1. Cameron and people from his background have ruled this country almost permanently for at least a century. Part of the criticism was because of over representation
2. Cameron tried to be something he wasn't
1. Wrong
Cameron hailed from a successful stockbroking family. Very specific genus
Can't think of any previous PM that was remotely similar.
Brown and May - church families Blair, Atlee - law Major - self made Thatcher - solid middle class Don't know Callaghan or Eden Wilson was an academic Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Churchill were from a far posher background Baldwin (I think), Bonor Law and Chamberlain were industrialists
Heath probably the closest.
Basically stockbrokers make crap leaders because they don't actually make or do anything: they are just in client relationship management.
Ridiculous post! His father was a stockbroker. He was an account exec. If you think there is such a thing as a 'Stockbroking gene' then I can only think it is a by-product of having your name put down for Eton aged 7 weeks because somene thought it was the best way of creating you in their image
Stockbroking is an honourable trade. Who can forget the stockbrokers of Jarrow?
Imagine how popular TM the PM (+9) would be if she wasn't hand-in-hand with him!
I suspect May benefits from being up against the worst leader of any major political party in British history.
Maybe. I was speaking w my Mum about politics on Friday. She is a Labour voter who voted Remain and was having a pop at me for slagging off Billy Bragg on QT. She would never vote Conservative in a million years and takes every opportunity to have a dig at them, but she defended May over her American trip, saying if she didn't go people would say she was upsetting our closest ally etc, and the hand holding thing was just ridiculous, what was she supposed to do?
Blamed it all on Cameron for leaving her a crap hand
May has the best "favourable" numbers, so I doubt it is just the fact she is against Corbyn. Maybe people like her? If my mum likes a Tory leader, Labour should be worried!
May's big advantage currently is that there is no-one credible making the case against her direction of travel.
The spotlight on Corbyn and Labour has distracted attention from the lib Dems. Despite the ramping, they've not made much progress and Farron seems a bit of a novelty act.
Is it time for them to roll the leadership dice?
In favour of who?
As I said in my piece yesterday, there's good sense to Farron's strategy. Let's see how Stoke pans out before declaring him embattled.
Labour, though currently weakened, it still the only game in town if you want an alternative to the Conservatives. That's its USP. Unlike in Scotland, there is no challenger on the horizon
If the present opinion polls are correct then Labour is, at present, the choice of fewer than half of those who want an alternative to the Conservatives. Even if we filter out the SNP, PC and the minor parties Labour can only equal the combined LibDem/UKIP/Green tally in the latest opinion poll. I suggest that this is not a great place for an official opposition to be after 7 years. I think you should be more worried than you appear to be. I am sure that Labour will still easily finish in the top 2 at the next general election but if they do so with significant losses then, after that, they might not look like any kind of alternative at all.
On the subject of Lewis' military record... the fact that he was unlikely to have been in a firefight hardly disproves the fact that he might have shot a civilian. This isn't Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire.
Well, I’m sure it won’t be long before one of his team surfaces. For myself, I’m prepared to believe people who go on the record, give their names and so on. “Military sources’ suggests a bored ex-squaddy wanting another drink!
If the MSM are doing hatchet jobs on Lewis, then that suggests to me that they they are a little concerned that he might actually be able to lead a Party that could become a threat to the Tories.
The mainstream media is not only Tory leaning, it's so Tory supporting it will hatchet anyone who might make someone a threat to the tories? Ookay. One wonders how we've ever ended up with labour governments.
It is largely true and that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. It is a very real but not insurmountable problem for non-Tories. I'm sure that it is a deliberate tactic of the Tory press to try to fix a negative image of any non-Tory in the public imagination before they have a chance to establish themselves. They were slow off the mark with Clegg in 2010 but once they saw the threat the personal attacks on him were disgraceful.
..and effective..
Of course it is because they know most voters rarely bother to check out the accuracy of what the right wing press prints - it's what Trump's entire candidacy is built on - we had the biggest inauguration crowd ever, their was an islamist "massacre" in Bowling Green etc etc. Without going all Godwin's Law some politicians and newspapers learned the lessons of Goebbels "Big Lie" quite well.
Interesting aside that Wikipedia has banned allowing the Daily Mail as a citation on its website because of the inaccuracy of much of its material, they are in the process of removing any links. Quite sad when a mainstream newspaper has come to that but that's where we are.
Pay £10 to boo Trump to his face and the money goes to troops' charities. What is not to like?
He is more unpopular than Corbyn. That is how unpopular he is.
The difference is that Trump isn't trying to win, say, Dewsbury.
But the Tories are. Getting too close to an immensely unpopular US president may not help.
This is starting to sound a bit delusional. In what way is letting him come on a state visit, and possible speak to an invited audience and/or the public "getting close to him" unless you believe the same of Labour inviting President Hu Jintao in 2005, and Vladimir Putin in 2003 (or come to that Dubya the same year)
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Possibly true. But remember David Steele said much the same in the 1980s as well - and it didn't happen then either. Sensational realignments are rare and require a complex variety of factors to all appear at once (cf Labour 1918-1929) which I just don't see at this moment.
Of course I could be wrong...
Labour is one serious split from being very close to where the Liberals were in the early 1920s. Sure, there are differences - one faction not being in coalition with the Tories, most obviously (except as perceived in Scotland) - but Labour was also in a strategically and organisationally weak place in 1918 and yet made the leap.
Labour had the Unions though. And the support of the Co-operative movement.
True. But then they also had the PR difficulties of the Russian revoution to deal with. (IIRC, there was no British Communist party until 1920).
And Scottish Labour still has those 'advantages'.
Do the Unions really still have the grassroots backing they had then? Not sure that the Russian Revolution was quite as unpopular with the WWC as it was with other parts of the community.
Labour, though currently weakened, it still the only game in town if you want an alternative to the Conservatives. That's its USP. Unlike in Scotland, there is no challenger on the horizon
If the present opinion polls are correct then Labour is, at present, the choice of fewer than half of those who want an alternative to the Conservatives. Even if we filter out the SNP, PC and the minor parties Labour can only equal the combined LibDem/UKIP/Green tally in the latest opinion poll. I suggest that this is not a great place for an official opposition to be after 7 years. I think you should be more worried than you appear to be. I am sure that Labour will still easily finish in the top 2 at the next general election but if they do so with significant losses then, after that, they might not look like any kind of alternative at all.
The spotlight on Corbyn and Labour has distracted attention from the lib Dems. Despite the ramping, they've not made much progress and Farron seems a bit of a novelty act.
Is it time for them to roll the leadership dice?
In favour of who? .
That bank manager chap. You know. What's his name. The one from Norfolk.
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Possibly true. But remember David Steele said much the same in the 1980s as well - and it didn't happen then either. Sensational realignments are rare and require a complex variety of factors to all appear at once (cf Labour 1918-1929) which I just don't see at this moment.
Of course I could be wrong...
Labour is one serious split from being very close to where the Liberals were in the early 1920s. Sure, there are differences - one faction not being in coalition with the Tories, most obviously (except as perceived in Scotland) - but Labour was also in a strategically and organisationally weak place in 1918 and yet made the leap.
Labour had the Unions though. And the support of the Co-operative movement.
True. But then they also had the PR difficulties of the Russian revoution to deal with. (IIRC, there was no British Communist party until 1920).
And Scottish Labour still has those 'advantages'.
Do the Unions really still have the grassroots backing they had then? Not sure that the Russian Revolution was quite as unpopular with the WWC as it was with other parts of the community.
The Zinoviev letter probably (and notoriously) won the Conservatives the 1924 general election.
There was a time when Irving was a reputable, if unorthodox, historian. But, that time is long past.
Not really. He has been an antisemite and a holocaust denier pretty much since his student years. His status as a revisionist pro-Nazi crank is longstanding.
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
There was a time when Irving was a reputable, if unorthodox, historian. But, that time is long past.
Not really. He has been an antisemite and a holocaust denier pretty much since his student years. His status as a revisionist pro-Nazi crank is longstanding.
His work was well-regarded in the 60's and 70's, though recognised as partisan. It was only later that he embraced holocaust denial.
In fairness taking on Andrew Neil after the Autumn Statement with no coherent policy platform to talk of would be no fun for anyone. I remember Osborne's joke at the Spectator awards about how he spent all his time as Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor avoiding that with the one exception being shortly before the Brexit referendum and how within a week he was out of office, lost the referendum, his boss and friend had stood down etc. etc.
In short, I am not sure this is a fair test of RLB's abilities. It is like asking a player from the local junior league turn out in the Champions League after minimal training. And playing for Arsenal, so you get minimal help from your team mates.
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
No, the problem is that there is no-one (currently apparent) who has that ability. So at worst he is wasting time.
Noises! She is a nice lady and telegenic but has no experience. This rumour appears to be the product of the overactive sense of humour of a Labour insider. Perhaps @NickPalmer could shed some light on this?
No, I'm not sufficiently in touch with much of the current PLP to comment on views of individuals, and anyway I try to avoid doing that. The general PLP mood at the moment, I gather, is to feel to things are grim, but that Corbyn made the necessary call on A50 and has improved at PMQs. So although most MPs would very much prefer to have a clear vote-winner, they aren't now quite in the Anyone But Corbyn mood that many were a year ago, and will wait for after 2020 or until a clearly stronger candidate whom the members might accept emerges. They'll be interested to see how RLB gets on, no more than that for now.
Do you think that, after the results on 23rd Feb, most Labour MPs will feel confident enough that they have a good chance of holding their (new) seats in 2020 if Corbyn is still the leader? I think they might be willing to sacrifice Labour losing upwards of a thousand councillors in the 2017, 2018 and 2019 local elections in order to ensure that all Labour members finally recognise the writing on the wall. What they're not going to be willing to do is to sacrifice their own seats.
So you might be mistakenly interpreting a willingness to wait until 2019 as a willingness to hold off until after the worst general election defeat suffered by the Labour Party in its history.
I'm sure the whiteness helps, plus sympathy from elements of Loyalism & Unionism.
I can imagine in certain contexts a headline like 'Why do we let this anti-semitic hate preacher come to live in this country and spout his vile lies' would have PBers whacking their flippers together like billy-o.
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
Quite right. It's hard to see what even Corbynista fanboys like @bigjohnowls see in him. It's unclear what his leadership offers any wing of the party. He renders the centre-left isolated; makes the soft left look irrelevant; winds up the union left with his opposition to Trident; embarrasses the metropolitan left with his euroscepticism and the angers the union right with his obsession with trendy causes. He then exposes his own hard left wing by being a scruffy, narcissist, arrogant incompetent.
In fairness taking on Andrew Neil after the Autumn Statement with no coherent policy platform to talk of would be no fun for anyone. I remember Osborne's joke at the Spectator awards about how he spent all his time as Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor avoiding that with the one exception being shortly before the Brexit referendum and how within a week he was out of office, lost the referendum, his boss and friend had stood down etc. etc.
In short, I am not sure this is a fair test of RLB's abilities. It is like asking a player from the local junior league turn out in the Champions League after minimal training. And playing for Arsenal, so you get minimal help from your team mates.
Yet another fair minded and thoughtful analysis from the thinking man's rightwinger.
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
Quite right. It's hard to see what even Corbynista fanboys like @bigjohnowls see in him. It's unclear what his leadership offers any wing of the party. He renders the centre-left isolated; makes the soft left look irrelevant; winds up the union left with his opposition to Trident; embarrasses the metropolitan left with his euroscepticism and the angers the union right with his obsession with trendy causes. He then exposes his own hard left wing by being a scruffy, narcissist, arrogant incompetent.
I really can't be bothered with these posters that sit on the fence. Tell us what you really think.
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
No, the problem is that there is no-one (currently apparent) who has that ability. So at worst he is wasting time.
If it's not working, which it unfortunately isn't, it is time to try something else. Tick tock, tick tock.
BBC Archive #Onthisday 42 years ago, the writers of Dad's Army spoke about how they thought it would only appeal to people who lived through WW2 https://t.co/ma4eoBd2pa
Agreed it is a mountain to climb, but just because the vaunted Lib/Lib Dem surge never really happened does not mean it can not or will not. Trump hurts the Tories very badly, so I could easily see a recovery not just to 20-30 seats, but well beyond the previous high water mark. The odds? Still small right now, but good locals and a couple more by elections and Farron is back in the game. A year ago that did not seem remotely probable. The shifts are tectonic and actually quite rapid. The long term trend away from 2 party politics still holds.
Possibly true. But remember David Steele said much the same in the 1980s as well - and it didn't happen then either. Sensational realignments are rare and require a complex variety of factors to all appear at once (cf Labour 1918-1929) which I just don't see at this moment.
Of course I could be wrong...
Labour is one serious split from being very close to where the Liberals were in the early 1920s. Sure, there are differences - one faction not being in coalition with the Tories, most obviously (except as perceived in Scotland) - but Labour was also in a strategically and organisationally weak place in 1918 and yet made the leap.
Labour had the Unions though. And the support of the Co-operative movement.
True. But then they also had the PR difficulties of the Russian revoution to deal with. (IIRC, there was no British Communist party until 1920).
And Scottish Labour still has those 'advantages'.
Do the Unions really still have the grassroots backing they had then? Not sure that the Russian Revolution was quite as unpopular with the WWC as it was with other parts of the community.
The Zinoviev letter probably (and notoriously) won the Conservatives the 1924 general election.
The Labour vote went up, although they lost seats. It was the collapse in the Liberal votes which put the Tories in. Foreshadowing 2015!
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
Quite right. It's hard to see what even Corbynista fanboys like @bigjohnowls see in him. It's unclear what his leadership offers any wing of the party. He renders the centre-left isolated; makes the soft left look irrelevant; winds up the union left with his opposition to Trident; embarrasses the metropolitan left with his euroscepticism and the angers the union right with his obsession with trendy causes. He then exposes his own hard left wing by being a scruffy, narcissist, arrogant incompetent.
I really can't be bothered with these posters that sit on the fence. Tell us what you really think.
I honestly didn't notice RLB had an accent. But then, I'm from Manchester. To my ears, Theresa May's accent grates a little, David Cameron sounds like he's from another planet and Ed Miliband sounds ridiculous. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by RLB's economic analysis, but that has far more to do with her party's history on these matters and on her policy position than her geographical origin.
The Dukedom of Gloucester will eventually have the "X" factor. The heir apparent to the title, the Earl of Ulster's, eldest son is Xan Windsor.
this morning's discussion has convinced me that the Duchy of Gloucester needs a re-brand. Perhaps we could run "Cheltenham" past a Mancunian focus group, see if it'll fly?
I honestly didn't notice RLB had an accent. But then, I'm from Manchester. To my ears, Theresa May's accent grates a little, David Cameron sounds like he's from another planet and Ed Miliband sounds ridiculous. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by RLB's economic analysis, but that has far more to do with her party's history on these matters and on her policy position than her geographical origin.
Well quite. I was too busy listening with incredulity to what she was saying, to pay any attention to how she was saying it.
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
It's only a tiny fraction of that inspired by David Cameron's and George Osborne's enunciation and associated background.
Except that:
1. Cameron and people from his background have ruled this country almost permanently for at least a century. Part of the criticism was because of over representation
2. Cameron tried to be something he wasn't
1. Wrong
Cameron hailed from a successful stockbroking family. Very specific genus
Can't think of any previous PM that was remotely similar.
Brown and May - church families Blair, Atlee - law Major - self made Thatcher - solid middle class Don't know Callaghan or Eden Wilson was an academic Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Churchill were from a far posher background Baldwin (I think), Bonor Law and Chamberlain were industrialists
Heath probably the closest.
Basically stockbrokers make crap leaders because they don't actually make or do anything: they are just in client relationship management.
Ridiculous post! His father was a stockbroker. He was an account exec. If you think there is such a thing as a 'Stockbroking gene' then I can only think it is a by-product of having your name put down for Eton aged 7 weeks because someone thought it was the best way of creating you in their image
His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were partners in Panmure. It's not a gene, but a set of values that he would have been brought up with. (I was brought up as part of a similar genus (now sadly nearly extinct) in the same part of the country. We have a very different view on things - more conservative on risk, more long-term, more thoughtful on big trends)
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
No, the problem is that there is no-one (currently apparent) who has that ability. So at worst he is wasting time.
If it's not working, which it unfortunately isn't, it is time to try something else. Tick tock, tick tock.
The problem there is that the 'somerhing else' has to be the right something else. Can Labour afford another failure as leader?
I did note the other day that the leadership were coalescing around her. If she is the anointed one, her odds should be correspondingly short.
She will be on the ballot, but not unopposed. It is far from certain that she would win the votes.
She would certainly be opposed. But there is absolutely no certainty she would be on the ballot. Unless the rules change - which is unlikely - the chances are she will not be on the ballot.
So if Corbyn says 'I'll go if you put her on the ballot' the Labour Party will respond 'Sorry, the rules don't allow that'?
The far left is losing ground rapidly inside Labour. Corbyn is going by the end of next year. Why do a deal to hasten it by a few months?
On the subject of Lewis' military record... the fact that he was unlikely to have been in a firefight hardly disproves the fact that he might have shot a civilian. This isn't Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire.
Well, I’m sure it won’t be long before one of his team surfaces. For myself, I’m prepared to believe people who go on the record, give their names and so on. “Military sources’ suggests a bored ex-squaddy wanting another drink!
If the MSM are doing hatchet jobs on Lewis, then that suggests to me that they they are a little concerned that he might actually be able to lead a Party that could become a threat to the Tories.
The mainstream media is not only Tory leaning, it's so Tory supporting it will hatchet anyone who might make someone a threat to the tories? Ookay. One wonders how we've ever ended up with labour governments.
It is largely true and that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. It is a very real but not insurmountable problem for non-Tories. I'm sure that it is a deliberate tactic of the Tory press to try to fix a negative image of any non-Tory in the public imagination before they have a chance to establish themselves. They were slow off the mark with Clegg in 2010 but once they saw the threat the personal attacks on him were disgraceful.
funny how there has never been any smearing of Tories by the media. Ever.
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
No one can that's why he's there in the first place. The just a bit nicer by spending a bit more than the Cons strategy exemplified by the other three leadership candidates didn't work.
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
It's only a tiny fraction of that inspired by David Cameron's and George Osborne's enunciation and associated background.
Except that:
1. Cameron and people from his background have ruled this country almost permanently for at least a century. Part of the criticism was because of over representation
2. Cameron tried to be something he wasn't
1. Wrong
Cameron hailed from a successful stockbroking family. Very specific genus
Can't think of any previous PM that was remotely similar.
Brown and May - church families Blair, Atlee - law Major - self made Thatcher - solid middle class Don't know Callaghan or Eden Wilson was an academic Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Churchill were from a far posher background Baldwin (I think), Bonor Law and Chamberlain were industrialists
Heath probably the closest.
Basically stockbrokers make crap leaders because they don't actually make or do anything: they are just in client relationship management.
Ridiculous post! His father was a stockbroker. He was an account exec. If you think there is such a thing as a 'Stockbroking gene' then I can only think it is a by-product of having your name put down for Eton aged 7 weeks because someone thought it was the best way of creating you in their image
His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were partners in Panmure. It's not a gene, but a set of values that he would have been brought up with. (I was brought up as part of a similar genus (now sadly nearly extinct) in the same part of the country. We have a very different view on things - more conservative on risk, more long-term, more thoughtful on big trends)
Hmmm...."But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again."
And guess what, the Donald wins again in the media battle with ordinary people
Donald J Trump 72% of refugees admitted into U.S. (2/3 -2/11) during COURT BREAKDOWN are from 7 countries: SYRIA, IRAQ, SOMALIA, IRAN, SUDAN, LIBYA & YEMEN
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
No, the problem is that there is no-one (currently apparent) who has that ability. So at worst he is wasting time.
Crudas and Nandy are writing a book of policy themes and ideas, to be out this summer, iirc.
That might shed some light on what is the point of Labour.
Loving the prejudice inspired on here by a white, working class Salford accent.
It's only a tiny fraction of that inspired by David Cameron's and George Osborne's enunciation and associated background.
Except that:
1. Cameron and people from his background have ruled this country almost permanently for at least a century. Part of the criticism was because of over representation
2. Cameron tried to be something he wasn't
1. Wrong
Cameron hailed from a successful stockbroking family. Very specific genus
Can't think of any previous PM that was remotely similar.
Brown and May - church families Blair, Atlee - law Major - self made Thatcher - solid middle class Don't know Callaghan or Eden Wilson was an academic Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Churchill were from a far posher background Baldwin (I think), Bonor Law and Chamberlain were industrialists
Heath probably the closest.
Basically stockbrokers make crap leaders because they don't actually make or do anything: they are just in client relationship management.
Ridiculous post! His father was a stockbroker. He was an account exec. If you think there is such a thing as a 'Stockbroking gene' then I can only think it is a by-product of having your name put down for Eton aged 7 weeks because someone thought it was the best way of creating you in their image
His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were partners in Panmure. It's not a gene, but a set of values that he would have been brought up with. (I was brought up as part of a similar genus (now sadly nearly extinct) in the same part of the country. We have a very different view on things - more conservative on risk, more long-term, more thoughtful on big trends)
Hmmm...."But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again."
It's by staying in the right side of macro trends that you can survive and prosper longer term. Make one or two mistakes and you can get flattened very quickly.
And guess what, the Donald wins again in the media battle with ordinary people
Donald J Trump 72% of refugees admitted into U.S. (2/3 -2/11) during COURT BREAKDOWN are from 7 countries: SYRIA, IRAQ, SOMALIA, IRAN, SUDAN, LIBYA & YEMEN
How many of them are the Iranians admitted under the Australian deal?
Spot on from Neil and Goodwin on bbcsp. We spend far too much time obsessing about Corbyn, which is a "surface issue" distracting from the fundamental problems that Labour will face under any leader.
Problem is Corbyn doesn't have the ability to fix those problems. At best he is wasting time.
No, the problem is that there is no-one (currently apparent) who has that ability. So at worst he is wasting time.
If it's not working, which it unfortunately isn't, it is time to try something else. Tick tock, tick tock.
The problem there is that the 'somerhing else' has to be the right something else. Can Labour afford another failure as leader?
No. I think that would be fine following a sort of Australian/Canadian approach. Ultimately Labour will discover the right formula.
Comments
I'm not too surprised by the thread header. I'd be surprised if the Conservatives didn't do the same featuring may and some of her Cabinet. Naturally, those working with and for the Conservatives seem more adept at keeping their counsel than those who don't.
Oddly enough, it's often a sign of a party in trouble that these stories (and the Lewis story) come out. I'm sure there are plenty of skeletons in the Conservative cupboard but it's in no one's interests to release them at this time.
Unlike Cicero, I don't necessarily wish Labour ill - plurality in politics is important and not even Theresa May's tent can encompass all views.
It's inevitable anyone even talked about as a Labour leader will be "scrutinised" and the slightest flaw in their back story or any speech they've ever made over the last 10 years forensically assessed for the slightest inconsistency. Unfortunately, that's politics but at the same time perhaps an argument for individuals to be proud of their inconsistencies and flaws.
I think next one of yours I read on Kindle (note the positive) I’ll keep a note of who did what to who.
[I was looking at inheritances because I suddenly realise a chap I need to inherit for plot purposes might have to murder his nephews, or have nieces].
Mr. W, sounds a bit similar to the Witan of the Saxons.
King Cole, not too surprising.
Edited extra bit: cheers for the clarification, incidentally.
And people don't mind fudged positions, if delivered competently. I appreciate the lds striking more unique and clear positions, not chasing the centre with everything, but those positions have limited appeal. People will still want an alternative who even doing badly will have near 200 seats, and only labour offers it. They're going nowhere, and if a new leader is better at the job, even corbyns damage might not be fatal.
Whether the membership have the sense to go for a winner is another matter. Do you have any idea if ex members will be able to rejoin after Corbyn resigns in order to vote in the leadership election like last time? I'm still hoping the membership have the sense to go for someone like Dan Jarvis. a chance to pay up and vote
If in 2020, we have an economic downturn, and a Labour party led by either Corbyn or a Corbynite, I'm with Cicero on this one. LDs could make some spectacular gains.
I think November/December (based on last time) is a bad time for a launch so I'd really like to publish it earlier.
I'm happy with the plot so any changes are likely to be superficial, improving language quality, expanding or contracting sections, rather than making actual storyline changes (which are the most time-consuming to do, especially in a trilogy).
Incidentally, Journeys comes out in three days and includes a short fantasy story by me. Only 99p for pre-order: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Journeys-John-Gwynne-ebook/dp/B01MUCON9Q/
One can find examples of male primogeniture, female primogeniture, equal primogeniture, ulterogeniture, splitting estates equally among children all over the world.
For most things, I try to ground worlds in realism, so female warriors can exist but they can't be too commonplace. As you say, individual character can make a lot of difference.
Edited extra bit: 4th, not 3rd century BC.
Besides, history cannot really be used as a precedent for rare events.
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/830480047882588160
The WWC were just the cannon fodder for the Tory right on Brexit, they were always expendable once they had served their purpose.
Is it time for them to roll the leadership dice?
May 65%
Johnson 46%
Davis 37%
Hammond 34%
Bercow 33%
Farron 30%
Farage 28%
Corbyn 27%
Trump 17%
Putin 9%
And Scottish Labour still has those 'advantages'.
Blamed it all on Cameron for leaving her a crap hand
May has the best "favourable" numbers, so I doubt it is just the fact she is against Corbyn. Maybe people like her? If my mum likes a Tory leader, Labour should be worried!
As I said in my piece yesterday, there's good sense to Farron's strategy. Let's see how Stoke pans out before declaring him embattled.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/830724882765803521
Thanks England.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4216634/Francois-Fillon-wife-Penelope-indicted-fraud.html
In short, I am not sure this is a fair test of RLB's abilities. It is like asking a player from the local junior league turn out in the Champions League after minimal training. And playing for Arsenal, so you get minimal help from your team mates.
So you might be mistakenly interpreting a willingness to wait until 2019 as a willingness to hold off until after the worst general election defeat suffered by the Labour Party in its history.
I can imagine in certain contexts a headline like 'Why do we let this anti-semitic hate preacher come to live in this country and spout his vile lies' would have PBers whacking their flippers together like billy-o.
BBC Archive
#Onthisday 42 years ago, the writers of Dad's Army spoke about how they thought it would only appeal to people who lived through WW2 https://t.co/ma4eoBd2pa
Foreshadowing 2015!
I'm thoroughly unconvinced by RLB's economic analysis, but that has far more to do with her party's history on these matters and on her policy position than her geographical origin.
That’s not the view of a hard core Thatcherite, but of the country’s biggest trade union.
UBI program would cost 5% of Finland's entire gross domestic product, making it "impossibly expensive."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/-useless-basic-income-trial-fails-test-at-biggest-finnish-union
Donald J Trump
72% of refugees admitted into U.S. (2/3 -2/11) during COURT BREAKDOWN are from 7 countries: SYRIA, IRAQ, SOMALIA, IRAN, SUDAN, LIBYA & YEMEN
That might shed some light on what is the point of Labour.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4216634/Francois-Fillon-wife-Penelope-indicted-fraud.html