politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The expectations game. How to judge the results in Stoke Centr

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The expectations game. How to judge the results in Stoke Central and Copeland

As a consequence of Labour right wing MPs deciding to perform the Farewell Symphony through the medium of interpretive dance, political observers have two Parliamentary by-elections to brighten up a dank February. In normal circumstances these would both be easy Labour holds. Yet, following a cascade of money that has no doubt been prompted by Labour’s speleological exploration of new polling depths, the prices offered by the bookies suggest something very different. In Stoke Central, Labour are narrow favourites ahead of UKIP, with the maillot jaune having swapped between these two parties more than once. In Copeland, the Conservatives are heavily-backed favourites, despite not having taken the seat since the Second World War.

Read the full story here

swing_voter

Good analysis, is Nuttall doomed if its not a win or good second place in Stoke?

DecrepitJohnL

If the Prime Minister is going to Copeland, presumably the Conservative Party's canvassing (or Facebook likes or whatever is this week's big data equivalent) shows it has a good chance of winning the seat.

In Stoke, Nuttall looks doomed although I'm not sure how deeply Hillsborough resonates 50 miles south of Liverpool.

not_on_fire

Struggling to find a reason not to pile on laying UKIP in Stoke

RobD

Fourth!

MarqueeMark

The Conservatives have "not increased their vote share at any Parliamentary by-election while they have been in government since Beaconsfield in 1982"

Trivia: that was the only election ever lost by the Labour candidate, one Tony Blair.

So it may just be that the swing was unusual because the good folk of Beaconsfield could spot a wrong 'un....

CarlottaVance

not_on_fire said:

Struggling to find a reason not to pile on laying UKIP in Stoke

Why, what has Stoke resident, former professional football player, Hillsborough survivor and current Professor Dr Paul Nuttal PhD done today?

DavidL

"Interpretive dance", like it.

Nuttell has proven to be a nutter, a dishonest fantasist who now has the black spot from Nigel. His tenure as leader is almost over and a poor result in Stoke will probably be enough. I don't think we will miss him much.

logical_song

DavidL said:

"Interpretive dance", like it.

Nuttell has proven to be a nutter, a dishonest fantasist who now has the black spot from Nigel. His tenure as leader is almost over and a poor result in Stoke will probably be enough. I don't think we will miss him much.

Losing count.

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

not_on_fire said:

Struggling to find a reason not to pile on laying UKIP in Stoke

Why, what has Stoke resident, former professional football player, Hillsborough survivor and current Professor Dr Paul Nuttal PhD done today?

That's Professor Lord Nuttal DSO (Bar) to you.

TheScreamingEagles

If this doesn't lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor

https://twitter.com/nytmike/status/831688054326906881

Lock him up. Lock him up.

rcs1000

Hard to disagree with any of Alistair's analysis. My one observation would be that if UKIP win Stoke, it will likely be because the LibDems have eaten into the labour vote share.

PlatoSaid

Lots of chatter right now in Trump base about re-engerising the MAGA agenda.

The defenestration of Flynn has really annoyed them.

TheScreamingEagles

rcs1000 said:

Hard to disagree with any of Alistair's analysis. My one observation would be that if UKIP win Stoke, it will likely be because the LibDems have eaten into the labour vote share.

I reckon that's how the Tories might win Copeland.

Hurrah for the Yellow Peril.

ydoethur

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

AlastairMeeks

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

Freggles

TheScreamingEagles said:

If this doesn't lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor

https://twitter.com/nytmike/status/831688054326906881

Lock him up. Lock him up.

Donald J. Trump = George Bluth

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Hard to disagree with any of Alistair's analysis. My one observation would be that if UKIP win Stoke, it will likely be because the LibDems have eaten into the labour vote share.

I reckon that's how the Tories might win Copeland.

Hurrah for the Yellow Peril.

I agree. I don't see the Tory vote going up much if at all but standing still should be more than sufficient as the Labour vote falls away.

AlastairMeeks

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

Jonathan

PlatoSaid said:

Lots of chatter right now in Trump base about re-engerising the MAGA agenda.

The defenestration of Flynn has really annoyed them.

Trumpski

ydoethur

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

kle4

If the Tories lose in Copeland it won't mean much but they have been pushed so heavily as likely winners it will be seen as disappointing. I think a failure to come second would be deeply troubling for ukip in stoke.

ydoethur

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

TheScreamingEagles

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent for an even worse President.

Hats off to Russia though for their extra time victory in the Cold War.

AlastairMeeks

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

The Labour right has been exceptionally lucky. If Jeremy Corbyn had been even marginally competent, they would have lost forever. As things stand, I expect the Labour party will have the chance to rebuild, albeit with a very corroded base.

TheScreamingEagles

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

When Diane Abbott starts rebelling you know the end is nigh for Corbyn.

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent for an even worse President.

Hats off to Russia though for their extra time victory in the Cold War.

Obamas finest achievement

ydoethur

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

The Labour right has been exceptionally lucky. If Jeremy Corbyn had been even marginally competent, they would have lost forever. As things stand, I expect the Labour party will have the chance to rebuild, albeit with a very corroded base.

I am reminded of Robert Blake's summary of Disraeli: 'He had luck, but the measure of a politician is the ability to exploit his luck.'

Yes, the right are fortunate that they are up against somebody so abject as the Jezziah. But can they find someone who can exploit it for them? The fact that last time they couldn't manage anyone better than Angela Eagle and Owen Smith suggests not.

Here's hoping you're right and I'm wrong.

Casino_Royale

Good analysis.

UKIP seem to me to be ungovernable.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

When Diane Abbott starts rebelling you know the end is nigh for Corbyn.

My great disappointment with Corbyn is that he didn't defy his own whip to vote against Brexit in the interests of his constituents. It would have been a fitting climax to a career of muddle, incompetence, dishonesty and stroppiness.

He still managed to vote against party policy over Trident though, which is something to cherish. Says quite a lot about his priorities as well.

DecrepitJohnL

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent for an even worse President.

Hats off to Russia though for their extra time victory in the Cold War.

Obamas finest achievement

Obama did set the precedent for hiring then firing Mike Flynn. Maybe Russia is a red herring and that is the real reason he went: the Donald discovered he used to work for the other side. Because, to be serious, what has been leaked of Flynn's conversation seems remarkably anodyne.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

On topic.
Like the Tour de France reference Mr M

PlatoSaid

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

TheScreamingEagles

My bold prediction.

When/if Steve Rotherham becomes Mayor of Liverpool, in the subsequent by election in Liverpool Walton, UKIP will lose their deposit.

Take a bow Paul Nuttall and Arron Banks

not_on_fire

PlatoSaid said:

Lots of chatter right now in Trump base about re-engerising the MAGA agenda.

The defenestration of Flynn has really annoyed them.

I trust you're finding their self-righteous fury "hilarious", just like the supposed media elites?

Casino_Royale

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Hard to disagree with any of Alistair's analysis. My one observation would be that if UKIP win Stoke, it will likely be because the LibDems have eaten into the labour vote share.

I reckon that's how the Tories might win Copeland.

Hurrah for the Yellow Peril.

I agree. I don't see the Tory vote going up much if at all but standing still should be more than sufficient as the Labour vote falls away.

The Tories have a very solid 12,000 votes or so in the rural Lake District parts of Copeland, which is solid Tory country.

I don't think they've ever dipped below 30% in the seat, and are usually at about 35% of the vote. It's just they are outvoted by Whitehaven itself.

DavidL

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

Innocent_Abroad

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

What do you want? For selflessness to become a criminal offence?

not_on_fire

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

So you're worried about democracy now? Interesting. Given your consistent support for a candidate who has demonstrably lied in public on multiple occasions and scapegoated minorities for his country's problems, I'm surprised you haven't expressed your concerns earlier

AlastairMeeks

I expect we'll have as much discussion about this fakery of news as we did about the original story:

https://twitter.com/rossalynwarren/status/831764136430276608

Or perhaps not.

RobD

AlastairMeeks said:

I expect we'll have as much discussion about this fakery of news as we did about the original story:

twitter.com/rossalynwarren/status/831764136430276608

Or perhaps not.

Was this only reported one year?

SouthamObserver

On topic - defeat for Labour in Copeland would be a catastrophe, but there may be a way back from it. Labour has bounced back against the Tories in the past and could do so again. Defeat in Stoke would be existential. Losing to a candidate as compromised and as poor as Nuttall would surely sound a death knell for the party.

SouthamObserver

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

Yep - but the unions need to give the green light to a challenge if it is to happen this year.

SouthamObserver

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

The Labour right has been exceptionally lucky. If Jeremy Corbyn had been even marginally competent, they would have lost forever. As things stand, I expect the Labour party will have the chance to rebuild, albeit with a very corroded base.

They are also lucky in that May does seem determined not to call a GE before 2020.

Pong

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

So you're worried about democracy now? Interesting. Given your consistent support for a candidate who has demonstrably lied in public on multiple occasions and scapegoated minorities for his country's problems, I'm surprised you haven't expressed your concerns earlier

What you say is true, but Plato also isn't wrong about this.

US politics is dysfunctional.

Trump needs to do a deal with the defense establishment to diffuse this. That probably means U-turning on NATO.

TheScreamingEagles

‪@PolhomeEditor: Growing feeling on the ground that Labour will hang on in Stoke, but lose Copeland. Long way to go, though.‬

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

When Diane Abbott starts rebelling you know the end is nigh for Corbyn.

My great disappointment with Corbyn is that he didn't defy his own whip to vote against Brexit in the interests of his constituents. It would have been a fitting climax to a career of muddle, incompetence, dishonesty and stroppiness.

He still managed to vote against party policy over Trident though, which is something to cherish. Says quite a lot about his priorities as well.

You'll be delighted, this weekend I'll be doing a piece that gives PBers a history lesson.

OldKingCole

SouthamObserver said:

On topic - defeat for Labour in Copeland would be a catastrophe, but there may be a way back from it. Labour has bounced back against the Tories in the past and could do so again. Defeat in Stoke would be existential. Losing to a candidate as compromised and as poor as Nuttall would surely sound a death knell for the party.

That’s assuming Nuttall wins. If someone else does,,,,,, and on a low turnout a strong performance in a couple of wards could tip the balance ... it’s not quite so bad. Labour lost the apparently safe Ashfield in 1977, and it’s suggested (on Wikipedia) that the loss was due to assuming Ashfield was safe and concentrating on the apparently more marginal Grimsby. However Ashfield was won back in ’79 and both it and Grimsby have remained Labour ever since. although Grimsby’s remained a lot less safe.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

A Lab or LD win in either of these will suit me nicely.

PlatoSaid

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

swing_voter

Is it that May cant call a GE when she likes (Fixed Term Parliament Act)?.........

Jonathan

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

You're not concerned by conspicuous Russian influence in the White House?

rkrkrk

Pong said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

So you're worried about democracy now? Interesting. Given your consistent support for a candidate who has demonstrably lied in public on multiple occasions and scapegoated minorities for his country's problems, I'm surprised you haven't expressed your concerns earlier

What you say is true, but Plato also isn't wrong about this.

US politics is dysfunctional.

Trump needs to do a deal with the defense establishment to diffuse this. That probably means U-turning on NATO.

But if it turns out that Trump and Putin did conspire together to undermine Hilary in exchange for lifting sanctions... What are the intelligence community supposed to do? Just cover it up for the acting president?

Wulfrun_Phil

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

Yep - but the unions need to give the green light to a challenge if it is to happen this year.

If there are smoke signals now there will be a bonfire by the summer of 2018 and a firestorm by 2019.

Labour MPs will have learnt the challenge of a premature challenge in 2016 and will surely wait awhile yet. Yes that means Labour losing swathes of councillors in 2017 and 2018 (and possibly 2019) but their focus is on winning their seats in 2020 (under new boundaries of course).

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Good article, Mr. Meeks. Certainly a pair of intriguing by-elections shortly before the first F1 test kicks off.

Speaking of intrigue, Journeys, the new fantasy anthology featuring a story by me, is out today:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Journeys-John-Gwynne-ebook/dp/B01MUCON9Q/

DecrepitJohnL

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

That would be the same New York Times which broke the Hillary email server story.

And MI5 has done it here, against Harold Wilson.

PlatoSaid

I see the media is still distracted - again

Tennessee GOP
BREAKING: President Trump signs repeal of Dodd-Frank provision. https://t.co/PwcDiVaYPd

Wulfrun_Phil

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

Yep - but the unions need to give the green light to a challenge if it is to happen this year.

If there are smoke signals now there will be a bonfire by the summer of 2018 and a firestorm by 2019.

Labour MPs will have learnt the lesson of a premature challenge in 2016 and will surely wait awhile yet. Yes that means Labour losing swathes of councillors in 2017 and 2018 (and possibly 2019) but their focus is on winning their seats in 2020 (under new boundaries of course).

[TYPO CORRECTED]

timmo

PlatoSaid said:

Lots of chatter right now in Trump base about re-engerising the MAGA agenda.

The defenestration of Flynn has really annoyed them.

If Kellyann Conway goes then look out for a softer Trump style.
He cant be combative all the time and he may now be recognising that fact.
The Spicer presser yesterday would have had him squirming under the oval office desk.

alex.

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

What was your opinion of Mark Felt, just out of interest?

Clearly there are big problems within the American system, but you only see the "blame" as laying with one side. Everything is so partisan that the traditional checks and balances are breaking down horribly, with a lack of independent figures prepared to step outside of party lines to fulfil their roles properly. When virtually everything is seen in the context of what it will do for prospects of re-election, then that is democracy gone wrong.

SouthamObserver

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

The leftist press!! In the US!!! Sensational headlines. Can you believe it? Democracy is in peril. Such scrutiny should not be allowed.

Obviously, though, it was absolutely fine for the head of the FBI to scupper Hillary Clinton just a few weeks before the presidential election. And as for voter suppression. That's not a problem at all.

Here's a strange notion: what if Trump has taken note of the warnings about Flynn given to him by the DoJ, confidentially and unleaked. weeks ago?

TheScreamingEagles

DecrepitJohnL said:

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

That would be the same New York Times which broke the Hillary email server story.

And MI5 has done it here, against Harold Wilson.

My friend would say that latter story is bollocks.

MI5 in the 70s was heaving with Cambridge educated gentlemen whose loyalty would have been to the Soviet Union, no way they would have plotted against a Labour leader.

not_on_fire

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

The NYT has 100 times the credibility of the joke alt-right sites masquerading as news that you often link to.

Again, why were you not appalled by the wikileaks emails?

GeoffM

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I expect we'll have as much discussion about this fakery of news as we did about the original story:

twitter.com/rossalynwarren/status/831764136430276608

Or perhaps not.

Was this only reported one year?

The way it works is simple.

There have been scores of incidents over a long period of time.
One case might not be accurate.
Therefore all other cases can now be ignored.
Awkward facts are therefore removed from history.
Done job. All is well. Move along. Nothing to see here, citizen.

SimonStClare

'A farewell Symphony through the medium of interpretive dance'

chuckle...

TwistedFireStopper

US politics looks absolutely fecked. Maybe Trump is actually doing a service by unintentionally bringing the whole rotten system down.

GeoffM

SimonStClare said:

'A farewell Symphony through the medium of interpretive dance'

chuckle...

Nice to see the old phrase get an airing again.

PlatoSaid

rkrkrk said:

Pong said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

So you're worried about democracy now? Interesting. Given your consistent support for a candidate who has demonstrably lied in public on multiple occasions and scapegoated minorities for his country's problems, I'm surprised you haven't expressed your concerns earlier

What you say is true, but Plato also isn't wrong about this.

US politics is dysfunctional.

Trump needs to do a deal with the defense establishment to diffuse this. That probably means U-turning on NATO.

But if it turns out that Trump and Putin did conspire together to undermine Hilary in exchange for lifting sanctions... What are the intelligence community supposed to do? Just cover it up for the acting president?

Hillary/Obama gave 20% of US plutonium to Russians - and literally pallets of cash in a plane to Iran.

It's insane to pretend that somehow Trump's attempt at détente is scary in comparison. Just for a minute stop being tribal and look at facts vs whatyouwanttobetrue

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, it would be interesting to know the result had the FBI not made that statement. Then again, imagine they hadn't, Clinton had won, and it had emerged there was further investigation being done.

They were in a very difficult position.

IanB2

Casino_Royale said:

Good analysis.

UKIP seem to me to be ungovernable.

I guess UKIP is the obvious place for anyone with authority issues themselves?

IanB2

TheScreamingEagles said:

My bold prediction.

When/if Steve Rotherham becomes Mayor of Liverpool, in the subsequent by election in Liverpool Walton, UKIP will lose their deposit.

Take a bow Paul Nuttall and Arron Banks

Is Banks still up there at the front? Last I heard he was working on launching an entirely new outfit.

Jonathan

PlatoSaid said:

rkrkrk said:

Pong said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

So you're worried about democracy now? Interesting. Given your consistent support for a candidate who has demonstrably lied in public on multiple occasions and scapegoated minorities for his country's problems, I'm surprised you haven't expressed your concerns earlier

What you say is true, but Plato also isn't wrong about this.

US politics is dysfunctional.

Trump needs to do a deal with the defense establishment to diffuse this. That probably means U-turning on NATO.

But if it turns out that Trump and Putin did conspire together to undermine Hilary in exchange for lifting sanctions... What are the intelligence community supposed to do? Just cover it up for the acting president?

Hillary/Obama gave 20% of US plutonium to Russians - and literally pallets of cash in a plane to Iran.

It's insane to pretend that somehow Trump's attempt at détente is scary in comparison. Just for a minute stop being tribal and look at facts vs whatyouwanttobetrue

This is more than détente.

edmundintokyo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, it would be interesting to know the result had the FBI not made that statement. Then again, imagine they hadn't, Clinton had won, and it had emerged there was further investigation being done.

They were in a very difficult position.

I don't think that would have been a problem - they have rules about this, and he would have been following them if he had stfu. More likely his practical problem would have been that if he hadn't released the information, somebody else involved in the investigation would have leaked it.

DecrepitJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

That would be the same New York Times which broke the Hillary email server story.

And MI5 has done it here, against Harold Wilson.

My friend would say that latter story is bollocks.

MI5 in the 70s was heaving with Cambridge educated gentlemen whose loyalty would have been to the Soviet Union, no way they would have plotted against a Labour leader.

Isn't that why they believed MI5 chief Roger Hollis was himself a Soviet agent: because he refused to act against Wilson?

rottenborough

IanB2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My bold prediction.

When/if Steve Rotherham becomes Mayor of Liverpool, in the subsequent by election in Liverpool Walton, UKIP will lose their deposit.

Take a bow Paul Nuttall and Arron Banks

Is Banks still up there at the front? Last I heard he was working on launching an entirely new outfit.

He's launches some kind of Brietbart competitor, can't remember its name.

PlatoSaid

timmo said:

PlatoSaid said:

Lots of chatter right now in Trump base about re-engerising the MAGA agenda.

The defenestration of Flynn has really annoyed them.

If Kellyann Conway goes then look out for a softer Trump style.
He cant be combative all the time and he may now be recognising that fact.
The Spicer presser yesterday would have had him squirming under the oval office desk.

Flynn appears to have fibbed - and Trump wanted him to stay out of loyalty - but Bannon said Enough.

Conway is being monstered in really ugly ways, she's got a young family to look after.

The NYT reporter outed for calling the First Lady 'a hooker' is typical - nothing is too low nowadays. It's horrible to watch - the vile stuff about Barron who's only 10yr old is another

felix

SouthamObserver said:

On topic - defeat for Labour in Copeland would be a catastrophe, but there may be a way back from it. Labour has bounced back against the Tories in the past and could do so again. Defeat in Stoke would be existential. Losing to a candidate as compromised and as poor as Nuttall would surely sound a death knell for the party.

I'd be astonished if Nuttall wins. I can see no point to UKIP now and would expect some of their support to return to the tories, DNV and Labour in that order nationally.

Blue_rog

I think that the whole US establishment are reeling after the Trump victory. This includes Democrats, Republicans, CIA, FBI and other state institutions, and the lobbying/media. The cosy club that they've existed within has been thrown into turmoil and they don't know how to react.

I don't know if Trump will be a good or bad President but the US political establishment will have a very uncomfortable 4 years and if Trump is anywhere near successful, it could be 8 years!

I just hope that some of the deep seated corruption is rooted out and removed and some of the pork barrel politics is exposed for what it is.

TwistedFireStopper

Maybe it's just the end of the road for UKIP? They've done what they set out to do, engineered some sort of formal ending of our EU membership. They've never really been good at anything else, never really been interested in going the extra mile to try and conform to the "proper" politics. Just a protest group, whose time has come to an end.

felix

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

The Labour right has been exceptionally lucky. If Jeremy Corbyn had been even marginally competent, they would have lost forever. As things stand, I expect the Labour party will have the chance to rebuild, albeit with a very corroded base.

They are also lucky in that May does seem determined not to call a GE before 2020.

I think May generally plays a straight bat for a politician. I think she believes a GE in the current febrile atmosphere would not be good for the Brexit negotiations.

rkrkrk

PlatoSaid said:

rkrkrk said:

Pong said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

So you're worried about democracy now? Interesting. Given your consistent support for a candidate who has demonstrably lied in public on multiple occasions and scapegoated minorities for his country's problems, I'm surprised you haven't expressed your concerns earlier

What you say is true, but Plato also isn't wrong about this.

US politics is dysfunctional.

Trump needs to do a deal with the defense establishment to diffuse this. That probably means U-turning on NATO.

But if it turns out that Trump and Putin did conspire together to undermine Hilary in exchange for lifting sanctions... What are the intelligence community supposed to do? Just cover it up for the acting president?

Hillary/Obama gave 20% of US plutonium to Russians - and literally pallets of cash in a plane to Iran.

It's insane to pretend that somehow Trump's attempt at détente is scary in comparison. Just for a minute stop being tribal and look at facts vs whatyouwanttobetrue

You are completely missing the point. If trump as president wants detente with Russia that's fine. It's his foreign policy ans he won the election.

But if as a private citizen he conspired with a foreign power to win an election by hacking his opponent in exchange for lifting sanctions then very, very obviously that's not okay.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My bold prediction.

When/if Steve Rotherham becomes Mayor of Liverpool, in the subsequent by election in Liverpool Walton, UKIP will lose their deposit.

Take a bow Paul Nuttall and Arron Banks

Is Banks still up there at the front? Last I heard he was working on launching an entirely new outfit.

He's launches some kind of Brietbart competitor, can't remember its name.

Is that the Westmonster thing?

GeoffM

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My bold prediction.

When/if Steve Rotherham becomes Mayor of Liverpool, in the subsequent by election in Liverpool Walton, UKIP will lose their deposit.

Take a bow Paul Nuttall and Arron Banks

Is Banks still up there at the front? Last I heard he was working on launching an entirely new outfit.

He's launches some kind of Brietbart competitor, can't remember its name.

It's not an alternative to Breitbart - the new site is just a news aggregator and short articles so far.

www.westmonster.com

DavidL

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.

What I find odd is the lies that were told about there being no such contacts, lies that according to the NYT article the White House is still standing by. This puts what might have been completely proper discussions into a different context, especially when the Russians stand accused of interfering in the election process. To say that the Trump administration was not handling this well would be an understatement. Their lack of political and public life experience means they are making mistakes that are going to cause them problems.

The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.

When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?

It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled

What are they supposed to do? Report their concerns to the President? How is an official with intercepted e-mails on his desk supposed to react when the White House spokesman is on live TV denying that they exist? There are indeed major problems here but suggesting those problems are with the intelligence community is naïve.

rottenborough

PlatoSaid said:

I see the media is still distracted - again

Tennessee GOP
BREAKING: President Trump signs repeal of Dodd-Frank provision. https://t.co/PwcDiVaYPd

Is Trump repealing Dodd-Frank? perhaps I'm not keeping up but I thought all he had signed is for a review.

PlatoSaid

Blue_rog said:

I think that the whole US establishment are reeling after the Trump victory. This includes Democrats, Republicans, CIA, FBI and other state institutions, and the lobbying/media. The cosy club that they've existed within has been thrown into turmoil and they don't know how to react.

I don't know if Trump will be a good or bad President but the US political establishment will have a very uncomfortable 4 years and if Trump is anywhere near successful, it could be 8 years!

I just hope that some of the deep seated corruption is rooted out and removed and some of the pork barrel politics is exposed for what it is.

Well quite. The Establishment are throwing everything at this administration - the obvious collusion with Obama friends in IC et al just takes it to a new level.

rkrkrk

TwistedFireStopper said:

Maybe it's just the end of the road for UKIP? They've done what they set out to do, engineered some sort of formal ending of our EU membership. They've never really been good at anything else, never really been interested in going the extra mile to try and conform to the "proper" politics. Just a protest group, whose time has come to an end.

There's a constituency out there for them though.... And if those online are anything to go by... They still don't trus the conservatives and aren't keen to become a wing of their party...

Theuniondivvie

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/831719693329264642

Can all the PB sharp minds who were predicting a Trumpency would subside into a run of the mill, unremarkable administration reveal when that's going to kick in?
Asking for a friend. In fact all my friends. And my family. And me.

View_From_Cumbria

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

The Labour right has been exceptionally lucky. If Jeremy Corbyn had been even marginally competent, they would have lost forever. As things stand, I expect the Labour party will have the chance to rebuild, albeit with a very corroded base.

They are also lucky in that May does seem determined not to call a GE before 2020.

No she isn't. She is playing poker. She is acting as if she had a majority of 60 to 100. If her bluff is called then she will have a GE, preferably on the new boundaries. Then she will have a majority of 60 to 100. And Labour and the Lib Dems will both be looking for new leaders albeit for different reasons.

SquareRoot

PlatoSaid said:

Blue_rog said:

I think that the whole US establishment are reeling after the Trump victory. This includes Democrats, Republicans, CIA, FBI and other state institutions, and the lobbying/media. The cosy club that they've existed within has been thrown into turmoil and they don't know how to react.

I don't know if Trump will be a good or bad President but the US political establishment will have a very uncomfortable 4 years and if Trump is anywhere near successful, it could be 8 years!

I just hope that some of the deep seated corruption is rooted out and removed and some of the pork barrel politics is exposed for what it is.

Well quite. The Establishment are throwing everything at this administration - the obvious collusion with Obama friends in IC et al just takes it to a new level.

as ye sow, so shall ye reap.

HYUFD

Copeland will be neck and neck between the Tories and Labour and Stoke Central should be a Labour hold with the LDs maybe taking third and not too far behind UKIP

foxinsoxuk

Blue_rog said:

I think that the whole US establishment are reeling after the Trump victory. This includes Democrats, Republicans, CIA, FBI and other state institutions, and the lobbying/media. The cosy club that they've existed within has been thrown into turmoil and they don't know how to react.

I don't know if Trump will be a good or bad President but the US political establishment will have a very uncomfortable 4 years and if Trump is anywhere near successful, it could be 8 years!

I just hope that some of the deep seated corruption is rooted out and removed and some of the pork barrel politics is exposed for what it is.

Deep seated corruption and pork barrel politics is just begining. The US has copied Russias kleptocracy with Trump.

PlatoSaid

TwistedFireStopper said:

US politics looks absolutely fecked. Maybe Trump is actually doing a service by unintentionally bringing the whole rotten system down.

That's the core view of Trumpers - expose it all and kill it - no wonder those who wield power/money hate it.

It's a very dirty fight - becoming POTUS like Brexit, was just the start.

tlg86

rkrkrk said:

PlatoSaid said:

rkrkrk said:

Pong said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have to say that I do have concerns about the CIA leaking like a sieve. I get that they are worried that the normal routes are shut but it sets a very bad precedent.

A bad precedent or bad president

More seriously, it's a good point. I can't get worked up over Donald Trump being treated like this, but supposing it was somebody equally bad but that they happened to like? The further the military and security services stay from politics, the better.

I'm genuinely worried about it - the whole notion of democracy is being turned on its head. I can't be bothered with silly micro-spats in by-elections here. The US is experiencing a serious political crisis. I've continued to follow events and its very ugly.

The leaking is just awful - no one wins by plotting against the winning team.

How would you feel about this here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMKCOlueyY

So you're worried about democracy now? Interesting. Given your consistent support for a candidate who has demonstrably lied in public on multiple occasions and scapegoated minorities for his country's problems, I'm surprised you haven't expressed your concerns earlier

What you say is true, but Plato also isn't wrong about this.

US politics is dysfunctional.

Trump needs to do a deal with the defense establishment to diffuse this. That probably means U-turning on NATO.

But if it turns out that Trump and Putin did conspire together to undermine Hilary in exchange for lifting sanctions... What are the intelligence community supposed to do? Just cover it up for the acting president?

Hillary/Obama gave 20% of US plutonium to Russians - and literally pallets of cash in a plane to Iran.

It's insane to pretend that somehow Trump's attempt at détente is scary in comparison. Just for a minute stop being tribal and look at facts vs whatyouwanttobetrue

You are completely missing the point. If trump as president wants detente with Russia that's fine. It's his foreign policy ans he won the election.

But if as a private citizen he conspired with a foreign power to win an election by hacking his opponent in exchange for lifting sanctions then very, very obviously that's not okay.

I'm not condoning it, but if Trump and Putin did conspire in the way you suggest, that was a seriously impressive achievement! Of course, it wouldn't have been possible without the complete fucking incompetence of the DNC.

HYUFD

PlatoSaid said:

Blue_rog said:

I think that the whole US establishment are reeling after the Trump victory. This includes Democrats, Republicans, CIA, FBI and other state institutions, and the lobbying/media. The cosy club that they've existed within has been thrown into turmoil and they don't know how to react.

I don't know if Trump will be a good or bad President but the US political establishment will have a very uncomfortable 4 years and if Trump is anywhere near successful, it could be 8 years!

I just hope that some of the deep seated corruption is rooted out and removed and some of the pork barrel politics is exposed for what it is.

Well quite. The Establishment are throwing everything at this administration - the obvious collusion with Obama friends in IC et al just takes it to a new level.

The Tea Party and GOP in Congress opposed Obama every inch of the way from day 1 of his presidency, the Establishment may not like Trump but they have accepted him as President it is Democrats in Congress and the liberal left who are now leading the opposition

rottenborough

GeoffM said:

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My bold prediction.

When/if Steve Rotherham becomes Mayor of Liverpool, in the subsequent by election in Liverpool Walton, UKIP will lose their deposit.

Take a bow Paul Nuttall and Arron Banks

Is Banks still up there at the front? Last I heard he was working on launching an entirely new outfit.

He's launches some kind of Brietbart competitor, can't remember its name.

It's not an alternative to Breitbart - the new site is just a news aggregator and short articles so far.

www.westmonster.com

Thx. Just had a look. Highly curated news aggregator. ISIS, muslims, EU crap, UKIP great, Trump great, rapists let off justice seem to be today's main features.

Still I would rather Banks spent his time on this than starting the English Democrats party or whatever.

matt

PlatoSaid said:

I see the media is still distracted - again

Tennessee GOP
BREAKING: President Trump signs repeal of Dodd-Frank provision. https://t.co/PwcDiVaYPd

Go on then, give some analysis of the effect of the repeal. A link to a twat only website like Zerohedge won't really cut it.

Scott_P

PlatoSaid said:

- expose it all and kill it - no wonder those who wield power/money hate it.

You're talking about the free press, and Trump, right?

AlastairMeeks

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/831719693329264642

Can all the PB sharp minds who were predicting a Trumpency would subside into a run of the mill, unremarkable administration reveal when that's going to kick in?
Asking for a friend. In fact all my friends. And my family. And me.

Not so much a new Jerusalem as a new Salem.

Pong

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ydoethur said:

Great article as usual Alistair, thank you.

In a sense though I wonder if we are missing the point with these. The results are almost immaterial now, because the mere fact they are at risk shows how bad things are for Labour. Anything other than two very comfortable holds signals they could be on course for sub-170 at the next General Election.

This has also happened at a time when Corbyn's appeal has been damaged by his actions over Brexit, which is popular with precisely nobody, and the Shadow Cabinet itself is falling to pieces. If there were a leadership election now, he might well be struggling. However, a third leadership election in three years also carries risks - not least of looking like the EU's long-held policy on referendum results it doesn't like (keep running them until you get the right answer). Unless Corbyn resigns, and he shows no sign of being aware of just how bad things are, I doubt if we will see another putsch.

The real possibility is therefore that the loss of either of these seats leaves Corbyn's leadership effectively dead but doesn't provide anything to replace it. In such a case, it is easy to imagine a senior figure on the left of the shadow cabinet becoming the focus for what little power there is. Could McDonnell suddenly become the leader de facto - and if so what implications does that have for the next leadership betting?

The wind has changed since the Article 50 vote. My sense is that if Jeremy Corbyn is challenged again, he will be defeated. From the smoke signals coming from Camp Corbyn, I think that's their sense as well. The end could be very sudden.

If that is true, it's good news. But I just don't see a challenger that might attract support from a wide enough coalition to win. Labour's problems are bigger than Corbyn although he's an especially nasty symptom of them.

The Labour right has been exceptionally lucky. If Jeremy Corbyn had been even marginally competent, they would have lost forever. As things stand, I expect the Labour party will have the chance to rebuild, albeit with a very corroded base.

They are also lucky in that May does seem determined not to call a GE before 2020.

I think May generally plays a straight bat for a politician. I think she believes a GE in the current febrile atmosphere would not be good for the Brexit negotiations.

I think there's about an 80% chance that's what she thinks.

There's a 20% chance she's playing poker and will come out with a brexit masterplan manifesto to put to the country in a GE this year.

rottenborough

foxinsoxuk said:

Blue_rog said:

I think that the whole US establishment are reeling after the Trump victory. This includes Democrats, Republicans, CIA, FBI and other state institutions, and the lobbying/media. The cosy club that they've existed within has been thrown into turmoil and they don't know how to react.

I don't know if Trump will be a good or bad President but the US political establishment will have a very uncomfortable 4 years and if Trump is anywhere near successful, it could be 8 years!

I just hope that some of the deep seated corruption is rooted out and removed and some of the pork barrel politics is exposed for what it is.

Deep seated corruption and pork barrel politics is just begining. The US has copied Russias kleptocracy with Trump.

I see no evidence that Trump will do this rooting out. We were promised swamp draining and then he puts half of Goldman Sachs into his Cabinet. Yeh right - Wall Street is really gonna get it in the neck.