In the possibly overstated after-glow of the Tories' win in Copeland, coupled with the inevitability that Corbyn's time as Labour leader is drawing albeit excruciatingly slowly towards its end, now might be a good time to consider the prospect on there being no overall majority at the next General Election, which seems all the more likely should this not take place until the designated date in May 2020. After all, despite all the bullish talk about the Tories' prospects, right now the party is grappling with a majority barely into double figures, with at least some prospect of by-election losses over the next 3 years. The really huge potential banana skin, apart from the economy seriously going off the rails is a complete and utter foul-up of our Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU, which has to be a distinct possibility. Of course, were this to happen, the Tories would then be attributed with 100% of the blame, notwithstanding that a majority of Labour supporters also voted for "Leave" last year.
There is currently quite a wide discrepancy in the betting markets for there being no overall majority at the next GE (whenever that might be). Those nice folk at both Laddies and BetFred are offering 2/1, whilst Betfair' Sportsbook is much meaner with their price of just 5/4. Unless Corbyn, or one of his cronies is still running the Labour party in three years time, I think the GE result is likely to be much closer than currently appears likely and on this basis, I've had a couple of hundred on there be no overall majority next time.
As ever, DYOR.
Agree almost entirely except are you sure Labour voters backed Leave - I thought the numbers were something like 60-70% Remain.
The truth is that no one knows exactly as there was no way of precisely judging political correlation as regards the referendum, but I remember reading only yesterday on PB.com (so it must be correct!) that most Labour voters in over 400 constituencies voted for Leave iirc.
No the majority in 400 Labour constituencies did, not the Labour voters. The evidence is pretty clear that a comfortable majority of Labour voters voted remain. Had they not done so it would not have been so close.
Nevertheless I believe the polling evidence suggests that in Remain areas like London, Labour voters vote heavily for Remain, whereas in Leave areas the balance of Labour voters was also more weighted towards Leave? In some Labour seats that voted leave, there aren't enough Tories to have swung the result!
Lib Dems playing the long game on Brexit, could well reap rewards in the long run as did their opposition to Iraq.
Did they really benefit from their opposition to Iraq? They could potentially benefit from opposing Brexit, but that will always be tempered by their role in the coalition.
The coalition ended less than two years ago but already it's ancient history, alongside Iraq and Margaret Thatcher; of relevance only to those who will never change their minds. So much has happened since.
Yes, but we now know that a lot of the Lib Dem support was nota votes. Yes, Ukip failed in Stoke-on-Trent. But if they were as finished as some on here think they are, their share of the vote would have fallen a lot.
Potentially they could replace the Labour Party as the main opponents to the Tories - but it won't be in 2020.
I've always wondered why Labour got rid of gambling tax. Having just Wiki'd Peter Coates, I now know why.
As with most things Blair follow the money...Remember new labour at one point wanted to turn Blackpool in Las Vegas and have super casino peppered across the country.
In my experience only a tiny minority of SNP supporters are racist. The closest the vast majority get is a dislike of the English who they believe have oppressed and dominated Scotland for far too long. The SNP have always sought to portray an image of an inclusive Scotland and Khan is wrong to claim otherwise.
Doesn't mean they are not completely wrong about what is in Scotland's best interests of course.
In the possibly overstated after-glow of the Tories' win in Copeland, coupled with the inevitability that Corbyn's time as Labour leader is drawing albeit excruciatingly slowly towards its end, now might be a good time to consider the prospect on there being no overall majority at the next General Election, which seems all the more likely should this not take place until the designated date in May 2020. After all, despite all the bullish talk about the Tories' prospects, right now the party is grappling with a majority barely into double figures, with at least some prospect of by-election losses over the next 3 years. The really huge potential banana skin, apart from the economy seriously going off the rails is a complete and utter foul-up of our Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU, which has to be a distinct possibility. Of course, were this to happen, the Tories would then be attributed with 100% of the blame, notwithstanding that a majority of Labour supporters also voted for "Leave" last year.
There is currently quite a wide discrepancy in the betting markets for there being no overall majority at the next GE (whenever that might be). Those nice folk at both Laddies and BetFred are offering 2/1, whilst Betfair' Sportsbook is much meaner with their price of just 5/4. Unless Corbyn, or one of his cronies is still running the Labour party in three years time, I think the GE result is likely to be much closer than currently appears likely and on this basis, I've had a couple of hundred on there be no overall majority next time.
As ever, DYOR.
Agree almost entirely except are you sure Labour voters backed Leave - I thought the numbers were something like 60-70% Remain.
The truth is that no one knows exactly as there was no way of precisely judging political correlation as regards the referendum, but I remember reading only yesterday on PB.com (so it must be correct!) that most Labour voters in over 400 constituencies voted for Leave iirc.
No the majority in 400 Labour constituencies did, not the Labour voters. The evidence is pretty clear that a comfortable majority of Labour voters voted remain. Had they not done so it would not have been so close.
Do you think is sheer reach allows him to nullify the accusations?
No as the two audiences don't overlap - yet his audience is the upcoming generation - and he's started to join forces with others on Twitter and YouTube. It's a powerful coalition that's forming now.
I watched a Jesse Ventura intv yesterday and had no idea about how he was shut out by the media. He's a fascinating character - I'd no idea he was a SEAL, Havard lecturer, Mongol biker - as well as pro wrestler and Gov of Minnesota.
I think I just heard a Labour person on Radio 4 say "What we should be asking ourselves is how bad it might have been if we didn't have Jeremy"
I must be dreaming.
That is the valid question though. The appeal of Jeremy Corbyn to the idealistic, the left wing and the people who just like someone who reminds them of Gandalf is at least some level of support even if it isn't enough to do much with. Andy Burnham would have been roasted to just the same degree by the tabloids - albeit with different lines of attack. Would he or anyone else really be doing any better?
Yes. Much better. Even Burnham. Labour has problems besides Corbyn but he is the biggest one. There seems to be a lack of understanding, especially among his supporters, about the difference between Corbyn and say Andy Burnham in left-wing man of the people mode railing against austerity. The latter would face an uphill task, be savaged by the Tory press and would have a big fight on to win in 2020. However, he wouldn't actively disgust or frighten (well, if he had a hope of winning) a large section of hitherto solid Labour voters from all backgrounds who lean to the left on a lot of issues but take one look at the revolutionary left Corbyn's long been associated with and recoil. It's this that makes Corbyn an existential threat rather than just a leader who's probably not good enough to win, a la Burnham. Even an inadequate leader would hold Copeland, losing places like it is apocalyptic and a sign those voters are beginning to stay at home or even vote Tory against their instincts as the only half credible party.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Lib Dems playing the long game on Brexit, could well reap rewards in the long run as did their opposition to Iraq.
Did they really benefit from their opposition to Iraq? They could potentially benefit from opposing Brexit, but that will always be tempered by their role in the coalition.
A lot of people do credit the Lib Dems with being the only party that got Iraq right. On Brexit it can go 2 ways - if it is deemed successful the Tories will benefit as they have now hitched their wagon firmly to that cause. If it goes the other way then I think it's quite good tactics for the Lib Dems to position themselves as the the anti-Brexit party. Of course if we get a classic British muddle somewhere between we will jog on much as we do now.
The danger for the Tories is ending up with no deal and the economy tanking. In those circumstances I can see a party arguing for joining EEA/EFTA doing well in 2020.
Coalition memories will fade and will only be a long-term issue with far lefties. I think the majority of Labour voters would have no difficulty voting Lib Dem. I said "never again" in 2010 but would probably vote Lib Dem in in a Lib Dem/Tory marginal again now.
Corbyn isn't going any time soon. Had we lost Stoke as well it may have happened but Momentum are claiming victory against UKIP as proof that Corbyn's politics triumphs "racism".
What Jezbollah are clinging on for is the McDonnell amendment to reduce the % threshhold of the PLP needed to nominate leadership contenders. If they get that I expect Corbyn to step down fairly quickly.
But they won't get it. The mob only vote in leadership elections, they do nothing else. They certainly don't show up to CLP meetings, which means that the majority of delegates to conference will be from the pre-2015 not insane wing of the party. Who will vote down the amendment.
Where we go from there is the interesting bit. Corbyn is too delusional and too surrounded by the delusional to accept reality - this is the denouement of his 34 year struggle against the Labour movement and he sees it as his duty to remove the middle and right of the party so that his Campaign Group wins out. Faced with no possibility of handing the reins over to some other ideologically pure but similarly idiotic successor he will have to go on.
And so the question of the post - where is the floor? Copeland shows that any half way marginal seat can be lost. Stoke shows than anything other than a massive majority is under threat. I expect that UKIP will fade away now - leaderless and brought into disrepute under the (what must be) brief leadership of Eddie Hitler, with their mission accomplished they will be done. The WWC who swung from Labour to UKIP will not vote, the middle ground UKIP vote goes Tory.
And the big event of course will be our crash out of the EU with no deal in 2019 and the crippling WTO tariffs demolishing industry in the lead up to the election. A lot of people don't like migration. They dislike unemployment more, and as the great economic collapse unfolds I expect the Tories to take the blame. A moderate Labour party who right now were arguing to remain in the EEA could do well but we don't have that. Calling Tim Farron - will you do another coalition...?
Lib Dems are very cheap, they will drop any principle for any hint of power
Corbyn isn't going any time soon. Had we lost Stoke as well it may have happened but Momentum are claiming victory against UKIP as proof that Corbyn's politics triumphs "racism".
What Jezbollah are clinging on for is the McDonnell amendment to reduce the % threshhold of the PLP needed to nominate leadership contenders. If they get that I expect Corbyn to step down fairly quickly.
But they won't get it. The mob only vote in leadership elections, they do nothing else. They certainly don't show up to CLP meetings, which means that the majority of delegates to conference will be from the pre-2015 not insane wing of the party. Who will vote down the amendment.
Where we go from there is the interesting bit. Corbyn is too delusional and too surrounded by the delusional to accept reality - this is the denouement of his 34 year struggle against the Labour movement and he sees it as his duty to remove the middle and right of the party so that his Campaign Group wins out. Faced with no possibility of handing the reins over to some other ideologically pure but similarly idiotic successor he will have to go on.
And so the question of the post - where is the floor? Copeland shows that any half way marginal seat can be lost. Stoke shows than anything other than a massive majority is under threat. I expect that UKIP will fade away now - leaderless and brought into disrepute under the (what must be) brief leadership of Eddie Hitler, with their mission accomplished they will be done. The WWC who swung from Labour to UKIP will not vote, the middle ground UKIP vote goes Tory.
And the big event of course will be our crash out of the EU with no deal in 2019 and the crippling WTO tariffs demolishing industry in the lead up to the election. A lot of people don't like migration. They dislike unemployment more, and as the great economic collapse unfolds I expect the Tories to take the blame. A moderate Labour party who right now were arguing to remain in the EEA could do well but we don't have that. Calling Tim Farron - will you do another coalition...?
In short then what you're saying is that all your hopes rest on something that may happen but is wholly outside your control. In the alternative MPs could grow a spine but that looks desperately unlikely.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Will a crap performance in May's local elections (from Peak Miliband in 2013) be enough, or will he blame that on Tony Blair making a speech in the middle of February?
Maybe a few more Jamie Reeds in marginal seats might be looking through the jobs ads? A "Copeland" a month wouldn't take long before Corbyn ran out of excuses for losing.
In my experience only a tiny minority of SNP supporters are racist. The closest the vast majority get is a dislike of the English who they believe have oppressed and dominated Scotland for far too long. The SNP have always sought to portray an image of an inclusive Scotland and Khan is wrong to claim otherwise.
Doesn't mean they are not completely wrong about what is in Scotland's best interests of course.
Ditto unionists David, unfortunately for them though we see the results of their policies daily and hear their glee at the thought that Scotland has a £15B deficit thanks to their efforts.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
A Coyne election would dramatically change the situation.
In the possibly overstated after-glow of the Tories' win in Copeland, coupled with the inevitability that Corbyn's time as Labour leader is drawing albeit excruciatingly slowly towards its end, now might be a good time to consider the prospect on there being no overall majority at the next General Election, which seems all the more likely should this not take place until the designated date in May 2020. After all, despite all the bullish talk about the Tories' prospects, right now the party is grappling with a majority barely into double figures, with at
There is currently quite a wide discrepancy in the betting markets for there being no overall majority at the next GE (whenever that might be). Those nice folk at both Laddies and BetFred are offering 2/1, whilst Betfair' Sportsbook is much meaner with their price of just 5/4. Unless Corbyn, or one of his cronies is still running the Labour party in three years time, I think the GE result is likely to be much closer than currently appears likely and on this basis, I've had a couple of hundred on there be no overall majority next time.
As ever, DYOR.
Agree almost entirely except are you sure Labour voters backed Leave - I thought the numbers were something like 60-70% Remain.
The truth is that no one knows exactly as there was no way of precisely judging political correlation as regards the referendum, but I remember reading only yesterday on PB.com (so it must be correct!) that most Labour voters in over 400 constituencies voted for Leave iirc.
No the majority in 400 Labour constituencies did, not the Labour voters. The evidence is pretty clear that a comfortable majority of Labour voters voted remain. Had they not done so it would not have been so close.
Nevertheless I believe the polling evidence suggests that in Remain areas like London, Labour voters vote heavily for Remain, whereas in Leave areas the balance of Labour voters was also more weighted towards Leave? In some Labour seats that voted leave, there aren't enough Tories to have swung the result!
On checking, I see you were quite correct that the huge vote for Remain in Inner London almost exactly matched its ethnic and socio-economic profile. Indeed, it seems London as a whole was slightly more in favour of Leave than might have been expected, due to some majority-Asian wards in Hounslow, Harrow, and Newham backing Leave.
My guess would be that in Inner London, Labour support for Remain was almost universal. In somewhere like Luton, probably 50/50.
O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!
It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.
Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.
Trump is a disaster. Corbyn in reverse, but in power too.
I've noticed this is a key rebuttal tactic: presented with evidence of Trump running roughshod over the Constitution, the response is Obama did the same, but it wasn't reported, so no one noticed.
And often the claims that 'Obama did it too' turn out to be false.
Selectively inviting news outlets and excluding those the president doesn't like? What's the difference?
What I think happened with Fox and Obama is that the Treasury asked for requests to interview Obama and as Fox didn't ask for one they weren't invited. However they should have been invited as part of a pooling arrangement with other network broadcasters who were covering the event. When the White House Press Office found out about it, they arranged the invite.
That seems quite different from Trump's explicit ban.
No one is banned who has a WH hard pass - the gaggle is a chosen group for an extended briefing. Nothing has changed except the organisations invited. The hysteria is ridiculous.
"By and large, the Corbynistas have three distinguishing features. They know nothing about the Labour Party, they know nothing about politics and they know nothing about Britain."
Do you think is sheer reach allows him to nullify the accusations?
No as the two audiences don't overlap - yet his audience is the upcoming generation - and he's started to join forces with others on Twitter and YouTube. It's a powerful coalition that's forming now.
I watched a Jesse Ventura intv yesterday and had no idea about how he was shut out by the media. He's a fascinating character - I'd no idea he was a SEAL, Havard lecturer, Mongol biker - as well as pro wrestler and Gov of Minnesota.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Will a crap performance in May's local elections (from Peak Miliband in 2013) be enough, or will he blame that on Tony Blair making a speech in the middle of February?
Maybe a few more Jamie Reeds in marginal seats might be looking through the jobs ads? A "Copeland" a month wouldn't take long before Corbyn ran out of excuses for losing.
Any Labour MP with a majority less than say 5,000 should be spending the weekend flicking through the job ads.
Corbyn isn't going any time soon. Had we lost Stoke as well it may have happened but Momentum are claiming victory against UKIP as proof that Corbyn's politics triumphs "racism".
What Jezbollah are clinging on for is the McDonnell amendment to reduce the % threshhold of the PLP needed to nominate leadership contenders. If they get that I expect Corbyn to step down fairly quickly.
But they won't get it. The mob only vote in leadership elections, they do nothing else. They certainly don't show up to CLP meetings, which means that the majority of delegates to conference will be from the pre-2015 not insane wing of the party. Who will vote down the amendment.
Where we go from there is the interesting bit. Corbyn is too delusional and too surrounded by the delusional to accept reality - this is the denouement of his 34 year struggle against the Labour movement and he sees it as his duty to remove the middle and right of the party so that his Campaign Group wins out. Faced with no possibility of handing the reins over to some other ideologically pure but similarly idiotic successor he will have to go on.
And so the question of the post - where is the floor? Copeland shows that any half way marginal seat can be lost. Stoke shows than anything other than a massive majority is under threat. I expect that UKIP will fade away now - leaderless and brought into disrepute under the (what must be) brief leadership of Eddie Hitler, with their mission accomplished they will be done. The WWC who swung from Labour to UKIP will not vote, the middle ground UKIP vote goes Tory.
And the big event of course will be our crash out of the EU with no deal in 2019 and the crippling WTO tariffs demolishing industry in the lead up to the election. A lot of people don't like migration. They dislike unemployment more, and as the great economic collapse unfolds I expect the Tories to take the blame. A moderate Labour party who right now were arguing to remain in the EEA could do well but we don't have that. Calling Tim Farron - will you do another coalition...?
Interesting post but don't you think the pressure of having a microphone pushed under his nose asking him when he's going to resign evrty time he moves might tell in the end?
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
I disagree. Corbyn can't be deposed in what might be seen as a palace coup. The new leader will need the legitimacy of winning fair and square. I'm writing a piece on this for Total Politics.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Will a crap performance in May's local elections (from Peak Miliband in 2013) be enough, or will he blame that on Tony Blair making a speech in the middle of February?
Maybe a few more Jamie Reeds in marginal seats might be looking through the jobs ads? A "Copeland" a month wouldn't take long before Corbyn ran out of excuses for losing.
Any Labour MP with a majority less than say 5,000 should be spending the weekend flicking through the job ads.
I make it 51 Lab MPs with a majority of under 5,000 to the Tories. One a fortnight takes us to around May 2019, allowing for campaign periods.
Lib Dems playing the long game on Brexit, could well reap rewards in the long run as did their opposition to Iraq.
Did they really benefit from their opposition to Iraq? They could potentially benefit from opposing Brexit, but that will always be tempered by their role in the coalition.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
I disagree. Corbyn can't be deposed in what might be seen as a palace coup. The new leader will need the legitimacy of winning fair and square. I'm writing a piece on this for Total Politics.
Yes I agree. Another coup attempt will split the party when they need to be united. I think Corbyn will resign of his own accord once he knows he has a way of getting a preferred successor on the ballot. Even if he goes as late as 2018 - I still think that's plenty of time before the next election for a new leader to bed themselves in. I think most normal people will have forgotten about Corbyn provided he has stood down a least 12 months before the general election.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Will a crap performance in May's local elections (from Peak Miliband in 2013) be enough, or will he blame that on Tony Blair making a speech in the middle of February?
Maybe a few more Jamie Reeds in marginal seats might be looking through the jobs ads? A "Copeland" a month wouldn't take long before Corbyn ran out of excuses for losing.
Any Labour MP with a majority less than say 5,000 should be spending the weekend flicking through the job ads.
I make it 51 Lab MPs with a majority of under 5,000 to the Tories. One a fortnight takes us to around May 2019, allowing for campaign periods.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
I disagree. Corbyn can't be deposed in what might be seen as a palace coup. The new leader will need the legitimacy of winning fair and square. I'm writing a piece on this for Total Politics.
There are far more Scots in Khan's London than there are in Malcolm's Ayrshire. Khan's more in touch.
Only one of those groups of Scots has a vote in Scotland though. Khan has just called up to 50% of the latter (many of whom are past & current SLab voters) racists; excellent work, son.
I think nationalism is basically racist. The extenuating circumstance for the Scots is that England have just voted nationalist in the referendum so in effect the Scots are just saying they don't want any part of English nationalism they'd sooner go alone or back to the EU and who can blame them.
that's better, Rog. My point, badly made, is that in England, the authorities are racist against us. We just want a level playing field. You won't get a council house in London if you have a cockney accent.
My sister did; as did plenty of other people I know. The biggest problem with council housing in London is lack of stock. So many former council places are now rented out by private landlords.
The other unspoken problem with council/social housing is the lifetime tenancy, and inheritibility of tenure restricts stock. If all tenancies eere assessed 5 yearly by reapplication, and reasonable notice to move given then the tenancy should be terminated. No other welfare provision is for life, however circumstances change.
This would free up a lot of stock, but needs to be done with humanity, and time for people to move to new accommodation.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
Do you think is sheer reach allows him to nullify the accusations?
No as the two audiences don't overlap - yet his audience is the upcoming generation - and he's started to join forces with others on Twitter and YouTube. It's a powerful coalition that's forming now.
I watched a Jesse Ventura intv yesterday and had no idea about how he was shut out by the media. He's a fascinating character - I'd no idea he was a SEAL, Havard lecturer, Mongol biker - as well as pro wrestler and Gov of Minnesota.
Plato, I'd appreciate your view on what was reported last night regarding the exclusion of some news organisations from a White House press briefing.
In simple terms - there are two levels of briefing - the WH press lobby who all sit in that stuffy room before the Press Sec. That's been expanded to include to bring in other organisations who aren't based in Washington - via Skype for example. The MSM are really pissed off that they're having to learn to share.
The next is the gaggle - that's an extended briefing with a smaller group of journalists with the Press Sec - it's pooled, so others get to hear the tape afterwards - but don't get the kudos of being part of the in-crowd that time.
Half a dozen of the lobby press weren't invited to the gaggle - they aren't banned from anything. Nor from saying anything. They're objecting to more conservative outlets getting a chance for a change.
Obama directly froze out Fox for years, tapped the phones of one of their journalists - and his parents - and investigated the phone records of 20 AP journalists. That's interfering by doing. Trump just hasn't asked half a dozen to the prom - it's naughty step time for them right now.
There are far more Scots in Khan's London than there are in Malcolm's Ayrshire. Khan's more in touch.
Only one of those groups of Scots has a vote in Scotland though. Khan has just called up to 50% of the latter (many of whom are past & current SLab voters) racists; excellent work, son.
I think nationalism is basically racist. The extenuating circumstance for the Scots is that England have just voted nationalist in the referendum so in effect the Scots are just saying they don't want any part of English nationalism they'd sooner go alone or back to the EU and who can blame them.
that's better, Rog. My point, badly made, is that in England, the authorities are racist against us. We just want a level playing field. You won't get a council house in London if you have a cockney accent.
My sister did; as did plenty of other people I know. The biggest problem with council housing in London is lack of stock. So many former council places are now rented out by private landlords.
The other unspoken problem with council/social housing is the lifetime tenancy, and inheritibility of tenure restricts stock. If all tenancies eere assessed 5 yearly by reapplication, and reasonable notice to move given then the tenancy should be terminated. No other welfare provision is for life, however circumstances change.
This would free up a lot of stock, but needs to be done with humanity, and time for people to move to new accommodation.
The ludicrous situation of frank Dobson being a prime example. There is no reason why a millionaire former minister of the crown should still be in a council house.
There are far more Scots in Khan's London than there are in Malcolm's Ayrshire. Khan's more in touch.
Only one of those groups of Scots has a vote in Scotland though. Khan has just called up to 50% of the latter (many of whom are past & current SLab voters) racists; excellent work, son.
I think nationalism is basically racist. The extenuating circumstance for the Scots is that England have just voted nationalist in the referendum so in effect the Scots are just saying they don't want any part of English nationalism they'd sooner go alone or back to the EU and who can blame them.
that's better, Rog. My point, badly made, is that in England, the authorities are racist against us. We just want a level playing field. You won't get a council house in London if you have a cockney accent.
My sister did; as did plenty of other people I know. The biggest problem with council housing in London is lack of stock. So many former council places are now rented out by private landlords.
The other unspoken problem with council/social housing is the lifetime tenancy, and inheritibility of tenure restricts stock. If all tenancies eere assessed 5 yearly by reapplication, and reasonable notice to move given then the tenancy should be terminated. No other welfare provision is for life, however circumstances change.
This would free up a lot of stock, but needs to be done with humanity, and time for people to move to new accommodation.
The problem is that any such moves are met with such wailing and gnashing of teeth that they become politically difficult. Council housing is an asset for the public good, and should be provided on a Needs basis - something both the left (Bedroom tax wailing) and the right (Right to buy) forget. But yes, the gov't needs to make hard headed decisions on this and not just be guided by tabloid front pages.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
I disagree. Corbyn can't be deposed in what might be seen as a palace coup. The new leader will need the legitimacy of winning fair and square. I'm writing a piece on this for Total Politics.
Yes I agree. Another coup attempt will split the party when they need to be united. I think Corbyn will resign of his own accord once he knows he has a way of getting a preferred successor on the ballot. Even if he goes as late as 2018 - I still think that's plenty of time before the next election for a new leader to bed themselves in. I think most normal people will have forgotten about Corbyn provided he has stood down a least 12 months before the general election.
For the moderates to allow Corbyn's preferred successor onto the ballot would be moronic in the extreme. It'd simply repeat the mistake of 2015, with the huge risk of the same outcome.
Corbyn is stubborn, but for his beliefs not himself. I could easily see him taking the hit "I am not up to the job: here is someone who is" and the true believers who backed him in both 2015 and 2016 finding a new cause to rally behind.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
There are far more Scots in Khan's London than there are in Malcolm's Ayrshire. Khan's more in touch.
Only one of those groups of Scots has a vote in Scotland though. Khan has just called up to 50% of the latter (many of whom are past & current SLab voters) racists; excellent work, son.
I think nationalism is basically racist. The extenuating circumstance for the Scots is that England have just voted nationalist in the referendum so in effect the Scots are just saying they don't want any part of English nationalism they'd sooner go alone or back to the EU and who can blame them.
that's better, Rog. My point, badly made, is that in England, the authorities are racist against us. We just want a level playing field. You won't get a council house in London if you have a cockney accent.
My sister did; as did plenty of other people I know. The biggest problem with council housing in London is lack of stock. So many former council places are now rented out by private landlords.
The other unspoken problem with council/social housing is the lifetime tenancy, and inheritibility of tenure restricts stock. If all tenancies eere assessed 5 yearly by reapplication, and reasonable notice to move given then the tenancy should be terminated. No other welfare provision is for life, however circumstances change.
This would free up a lot of stock, but needs to be done with humanity, and time for people to move to new accommodation.
I guess the argument to that would be it would make for a transient rather than a stable community. Maybe they could means test as you say, and make those who could afford it pay a higher rent to stay put?
The PLP were utter imbeciles to not understand their role had changed to gatekeepers. Instead of keeping the unacceptable off the ballot they supported a man they never wanted, and he ended up winning.
They should learn the lessons of recent history (as should those advocating carving England into little regional assemblies...).
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
A Coyne election would dramatically change the situation.
If the centre-left do see Corbyn as the problem, then contra-intuitively they really need the "McDonnell amendment" (enabling a leftist to stand in a future leadership contest) to pass. Without it, he'll feel it's his socialist duty to carry on (thinking that stress will make him step down completely misreads him). With it, there's a chance that the membership would elect someone else on the left, and he could reasonbly feel he could call it a day.
Of course, if the centre-left don't care about Corbyn and simply want to be able to lock the left out of competing next time, then they need to defeat the amendment. But in that case they need to recognise that Corbyn won't be going anywhere any time soon.
I've got an article on this which will pop up on Labour List shortly.
A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!
(Or did his intervention "Labour are in the worst position they've been in for 52 years" mean something else?)
We should remember what happened to the original King Over The Water when he returned to 'lead' his troops.
Miliband couldn't get elected in the Labour Party of 2010 (which isn't the same as he couldn't *be* elected; he blew his chances with a complacent campaign and a stupid flippant comment about the unions); he certainly could get elected in the Labour Party of 2017.
One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.
So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results
David Herdson overstates this. We can say this with more confidence in strongly Leave-voting seats. The evidence from seats that voted Remain so far points the other way.
About 400 constituencies voted Leave. Good news for May!
I'm coming back to this point in a thread header soon. It's more complicated than this.
Obviously the Conservatives are doing very well and Labour are doing very badly, mind.
Good morning all. I'm not sure that Brexit has as much salience as we anoraks believe. It doesn't really engage ordinary peoples' passions. This is, of course, pure anecdota based on talking to my extended family.
We had a vote, the government is getting on with it, and now the conversation is about the NHS and social care - that's if we talk about politics at all. I would add that the Labour voters in my tribe do like Mrs May. Which is a genuine surprise. I thought they'd see Thatcher II.
Totally agree re-Brexit. Some signs on Sky election programme that the Broadcasters are beginning to wake up to that reality.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
A Coyne election would dramatically change the situation.
If the centre-left do see Corbyn as the problem, then contra-intuitively they really need the "McDonnell amendment" (enabling a leftist to stand in a future leadership contest) to pass. Without it, he'll feel it's his socialist duty to carry on (thinking that stress will make him step down completely misreads him). With it, there's a chance that the membership would elect someone else on the left, and he could reasonbly feel he could call it a day.
Of course, if the centre-left don't care about Corbyn and simply want to be able to lock the left out of competing next time, then they need to defeat the amendment. But in that case they need to recognise that Corbyn won't be going anywhere any time soon.
I've got an article on this which will pop up on Labour List shortly.
As an ex Labour voter, all I can say is that I wouldn't even consider coming back, if UKIP fell by the wayside, with the likes of McDonnell ,Abbott, Corbyn etc anywhere near the top. My parents are lifelong Labour voters, brought up on council estates, trade unionists, the whole shebang, and they prefer May to Corbyn...wake up!!
There are far more Scots in Khan's London than there are in Malcolm's Ayrshire. Khan's more in touch.
Only one of those groups of Scots has a vote in Scotland though. Khan has just called up to 50% of the latter (many of whom are past & current SLab voters) racists; excellent work, son.
I think nationalism is basically racist. The extenuating circumstance for the Scots is that England have just voted nationalist in the referendum so in effect the Scots are just saying they don't want any part of English nationalism they'd sooner go alone or back to the EU and who can blame them.
that's better, Rog. My point, badly made, is that in England, the authorities are racist against us. We just want a level playing field. You won't get a council house in London if you have a cockney accent.
My sister did; as did plenty of other people I know. The biggest problem with council housing in London is lack of stock. So many former council places are now rented out by private landlords.
The other unspoken problem with council/social housing is the lifetime tenancy, and inheritibility of tenure restricts stock. If all tenancies eere assessed 5 yearly by reapplication, and reasonable notice to move given then the tenancy should be terminated. No other welfare provision is for life, however circumstances change.
This would free up a lot of stock, but needs to be done with humanity, and time for people to move to new accommodation.
Agree completely, and if social housing tenancies were more flexible it would also allow more labour mobility
But the last time the govt tried to nudge people out of too-big accommodation paid for by the state, it was labelled the "Bedroom Tax" amid the usual howls that Tories want to drive people out of "their homes".
It's another one of those good ideas that's politically impossible - maybe one for when one party or another has a 150 majority? In the meantime we need to get building, planning reform has to be an urgent priority.
Lib Dems playing the long game on Brexit, could well reap rewards in the long run as did their opposition to Iraq.
Did they really benefit from their opposition to Iraq? They could potentially benefit from opposing Brexit, but that will always be tempered by their role in the coalition.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
It's not settled for eternity, but Rejoin will be a much harder sell to the British public than Remain was, considering the implications regarding the euro and Schengen.
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
I disagree. Corbyn can't be deposed in what might be seen as a palace coup. The new leader will need the legitimacy of winning fair and square. I'm writing a piece on this for Total Politics.
Yes I agree. Another coup attempt will split the party when they need to be united. I think Corbyn will resign of his own accord once he knows he has a way of getting a preferred successor on the ballot. Even if he goes as late as 2018 - I still think that's plenty of time before the next election for a new leader to bed themselves in. I think most normal people will have forgotten about Corbyn provided he has stood down a least 12 months before the general election.
For the moderates to allow Corbyn's preferred successor onto the ballot would be moronic in the extreme. It'd simply repeat the mistake of 2015, with the huge risk of the same outcome.
Corbyn is stubborn, but for his beliefs not himself. I could easily see him taking the hit "I am not up to the job: here is someone who is" and the true believers who backed him in both 2015 and 2016 finding a new cause to rally behind.
I don't agree it would be stupid... If the moderates want power they need to get back to winning elections... Not attempting to keep people off the ballot.
Corbyn has a personal brand that may not translate to other similar politicians. He is also vulnerable on brexit - labour members I think will be open to a more forceful opposition to brexit. I also think many on the left would be a fairly big electoral improvement to Corbyn without being enormously different politically.
Bottom line. To win/do respectably at the next election - Labour must be a united party led by someone else. Both conditions must hold.
Lily Allen .@johndubskierx I don't hate all pensioners just the extremists.Can't you see this country is being taken over by hate extremist pensioners.
Do you think is sheer reach allows him to nullify the accusations?
No as the two audiences don't overlap - yet his audience is the upcoming generation - and he's started to join forces with others on Twitter and YouTube. It's a powerful coalition that's forming now.
I watched a Jesse Ventura intv yesterday and had no idea about how he was shut out by the media. He's a fascinating character - I'd no idea he was a SEAL, Havard lecturer, Mongol biker - as well as pro wrestler and Gov of Minnesota.
Plato, I'd appreciate your view on what was reported last night regarding the exclusion of some news organisations from a White House press briefing.
In simple terms - there are two levels of briefing - the WH press lobby who all sit in that stuffy room before the Press Sec. That's been expanded to include to bring in other organisations who aren't based in Washington - via Skype for example. The MSM are really pissed off that they're having to learn to share.
The next is the gaggle - that's an extended briefing with a smaller group of journalists with the Press Sec - it's pooled, so others get to hear the tape afterwards - but don't get the kudos of being part of the in-crowd that time.
Half a dozen of the lobby press weren't invited to the gaggle - they aren't banned from anything. Nor from saying anything. They're objecting to more conservative outlets getting a chance for a change.
Obama directly froze out Fox for years, tapped the phones of one of their journalists - and his parents - and investigated the phone records of 20 AP journalists. That's interfering by doing. Trump just hasn't asked half a dozen to the prom - it's naughty step time for them right now.
That's as I read it too, and couldn't understand what the fuss was about. It was only the second, informal 'huddle' briefing to which certain media weren't invited. As others have said, by making the story all about themselves the media are missing what's actually going on in the White House (and no doubt encuoraging a whole bunch of people to look elesewhere for their news).
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Lib Dems playing the long game on Brexit, could well reap rewards in the long run as did their opposition to Iraq.
Did they really benefit from their opposition to Iraq? They could potentially benefit from opposing Brexit, but that will always be tempered by their role in the coalition.
It was the making of them!
It didn't stop Labour winning a substantial majority in 2005. From what I remember, the Lib Dems didn't really campaign on Iraq.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Still hasn't hit the fan after we didn't join the Euro.....
F1: some idle musing. Not sure how I'll proceed with pre-season posting. Maybe one per test.
Anyway, I anticipate Mercedes and Red Bull being a cut above the rest, probably in the same order as last year. Third place is intriguing. Force India have said they're aiming for it (elsewhere, Renault reckon they'll easily beat Force India. Not so sure). Williams may be contenders. I still think Ferrari will slide backwards.
McLaren are intriguing. Genuinely a possible podium-contender. Could they return to winning ways? I do think it's credible, although an outside chance. They have a lot of ground to make up and have taken risks with development (necessary, as Alonso said).
I suspect Haas will struggle. Just a gut feeling. They benefited a lot from Ferrari support (all legitimate, of course) but that'll diminish now they're actually in the sport, and regulation changes require new designs. Grosjean's a good driver but he doesn't thrive in adversity (his radio last year was frustrated as a eunuch at an orgy).
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Still hasn't hit the fan after we didn't join the Euro.....
Why would it have done? There was no disruption, nothing was changed, just another currency that was introduced over a number of years with some stocks being traded in it as a virtual currency replacing the ECU for three years before the physical coins and notes.
If Brexit goes wrong it will happen in weeks or months and it will upset a lot of apple carts.
That 10/3 is better than the 3.35 (12/5) on Betfair for Corbyn to still be in place at the GE, and might be considered a reasonable proxy looking at the current opinion polls.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
It's not settled for eternity, but Rejoin will be a much harder sell to the British public than Remain was, considering the implications regarding the euro and Schengen.
The irony being that having left to preserve the Pound and avoid Schengen, if we have to rejoin .....
Given Brexit uncertainty, really very bad NHS headlines, continued missing by a country miule of the immigration targets and in Mrs May a Prime Minister who seems to have spent 6 months doing nothing much, the Copeland result was extraordinary.
Corbyn really is utterly toxic for Labour.
A slump to much worse than 1983 must be highly possible.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
Mr. Urquhart, and Owen Jones is more sensible than the current Labour leadership.
A truly shocking indictment of the current Labour leadership.
Edit - actually I think may be being unfair. Jones started out a few years back as a typical metropolitan liberal idiot, naive, arrogant and spectacularly ill-informed, who might fairly be compared to everyone's favourite fantasist, forger and liar Johann Hari. But to his very great credit he has learned, he has worked and he is getting better. He is no John Harris yet, but I would say his work is now better and more worthwhile than Her Polyness or on the other side, Janet Daley.
There are far more Scots in Khan's London than there are in Malcolm's Ayrshire. Khan's more in touch.
Only one of those groups of Scots has a vote in Scotland though. Khan has just called up to 50% of the latter (many of whom are past & current SLab voters) racists; excellent work, son.
I think nationalism is basically racist. The extenuating circumstance for the Scots is that England have just voted nationalist in the referendum so in effect the Scots are just saying they don't want any part of English nationalism they'd sooner go alone or back to the EU and who can blame them.
that's better, Rog. My point, badly made, is that in
My sister did; as did plenty of other people I know. The biggest problem with council housing in London is lack of stock. So many former council places are now rented out by private landlords.
The other unspoken
This would free up a lot of stock, but needs to be done with humanity, and time for people to move to new accommodation.
I guess the argument to that would be it would make for a transient rather than a stable community. Maybe they could means test as you say, and make those who could afford it pay a higher rent to stay put?
My street is roughly 50% owner occupier and 50% social housing. A lot of the social housing is occupied by people whose children who have grown and moved on, others are rather overcrowded.
If there were suitable places (say 1-2 bed retirement chalets, within walking distance) then a half dozen family homes would be available. At the moment my suburb is greying and the school importing pupils from out of area because youngsters cannot get a house here.
Only the social housed have the right to stay on, whatever their finances, I do not. Indeed I plan to downsize myself in a few years.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!
It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.
Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.
He held briefings with selected invitation lists, excluding organisations he didn't like.
All Presidents do that.
That is very different from barring selected organisations from the daily press briefing.
I don't see why.
I think White House press secretary Sean Spicer sums it up best:
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
It's not settled for eternity, but Rejoin will be a much harder sell to the British public than Remain was, considering the implications regarding the euro and Schengen.
The irony being that having left to preserve the Pound and avoid Schengen, if we have to rejoin .....
Given our disasterous deficit we would not meet requirements to join the EURO
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!
It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.
Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.
He held briefings with selected invitation lists, excluding organisations he didn't like.
All Presidents do that.
That is very different from barring selected organisations from the daily press briefing.
I don't see why.
I think White House press secretary Sean Spicer sums it up best:
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
A50 by any chance?
That would be very amusing.... unfortunately I think it is the A500 and then it becomes Queensway or Expressway of some such. Maybe from the other other (the east) it is the A50 but if I am going through Stoke, I go south on the M6 and then off at Junction 15 or 16 (I cannot remember which, I just look for the big signs)
O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!
It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.
Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.
He held briefings with selected invitation lists, excluding organisations he didn't like.
All Presidents do that.
That is very different from barring selected organisations from the daily press briefing.
I don't see why.
I think White House press secretary Sean Spicer sums it up best:
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
It's not settled for eternity, but Rejoin will be a much harder sell to the British public than Remain was, considering the implications regarding the euro and Schengen.
The irony being that having left to preserve the Pound and avoid Schengen, if we have to rejoin .....
I'm sorry, I'm struggling with irony here, unless you're doing it in an Alanis Morissette sense. Why would we have to rejoin?
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
It's not settled for eternity, but Rejoin will be a much harder sell to the British public than Remain was, considering the implications regarding the euro and Schengen.
The irony being that having left to preserve the Pound and avoid Schengen, if we have to rejoin .....
Given our disasterous deficit we would not meet requirements to join the EURO
Didn't stop the Greeks.
If we're dumb enough to want to Rejoin, the price will certainly include joining the euro and Schengen.
I'd have thought the main thing putting off British tourists was the very strong dollar/weak pound at the moment.
That probably pays a part, but given the notorious reputation of the US "Port of Entry" staff (TSA? Homeland Security?) I suspect that many people just are not taking the chance.
It is only a couple of weeks ago that people with Visas found they expired in mid-flight over the Atlantic. Why RISK a few thousand on a holiday or trip that can be arbitrarily cancelled for no apparent reason. You might not get your money back.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
A50 by any chance?
That would be very amusing.... unfortunately I think it is the A500 and then it becomes Queensway or Expressway of some such. Maybe from the other other (the east) it is the A50 but if I am going through Stoke, I go south on the M6 and then off at Junction 15 or 16 (I cannot remember which, I just look for the big signs)
The A50's a much better road. It's a fast dual carriageway that usually is busy rather than stationary. It also goes all the way to Nottingham so you can quickly get to a plane and be anywhere in the world. It's a very good way of leaving Stoke if you're in a hurry (and let's face it, who isn't in a hurry to leave Stoke)?
I'll stop there before we have any even more strained Brexit metaphors about the fast track to an open world...
Casino - it always seems to be the way that successful betting exploits are celebrated in terms of spending one's ill-gotten gains on luxuries, in your case on a holiday with Mrs Casino in Thailand. With me, it's on buying a case of good wine or spending a small fortune going to the West End theatre followed by dinner, etc. We never seem to equate winning with having that old creaking boiler fixed or whatever.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened to my GE2015 winnings. I was deep in the agreeable process of working out the optimal asset allocation strategy for my investment in the Nabavi Claret Fund, when Higher Authority intervened and decreed that the proceeds should be diverted to replacing our old garden tractor.
Given Brexit uncertainty, really very bad NHS headlines, continued missing by a country miule of the immigration targets and in Mrs May a Prime Minister who seems to have spent 6 months doing nothing much, the Copeland result was extraordinary.
Corbyn really is utterly toxic for Labour.
A slump to much worse than 1983 must be highly possible.
More the possible, I think we are in "probable" territory.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
A50 by any chance?
That would be very amusing.... unfortunately I think it is the A500 and then it becomes Queensway or Expressway of some such. Maybe from the other other (the east) it is the A50 but if I am going through Stoke, I go south on the M6 and then off at Junction 15 or 16 (I cannot remember which, I just look for the big signs)
Very true, the Queensway "D-Road" is indeed the A500, the A50 is the old road which runs NW>SE from Sandbach through Stoke and out towards Utoxeter and Derby. South of Stoke it's now a nice dual carriageway.
O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!
It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.
Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.
He held briefings with selected invitation lists, excluding organisations he didn't like.
All Presidents do that.
That is very different from barring selected organisations from the daily press briefing.
I don't see why.
I think White House press secretary Sean Spicer sums it up best:
And Trump hasn't, AIUI, banned anyone from the daily briefing.
This seems to suggest that the daily press briefing was cancelled and some other kind of briefing done with certain organisations banned from attending.
Casino - it always seems to be the way that successful betting exploits are celebrated in terms of spending one's ill-gotten gains on luxuries, in your case on a holiday with Mrs Casino in Thailand. With me, it's on buying a case of good wine or spending a small fortune going to the West End theatre followed by dinner, etc. We never seem to equate winning with having that old creaking boiler fixed or whatever.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened to my GE2015 winnings. I was deep in the agreeable process of working out the optimal asset allocation strategy for my investment in the Nabavi Claret Fund, when Higher Authority intervened and decreed that the proceeds should be diverted to replacing our old garden tractor.
Of course, if the centre-left don't care about Corbyn and simply want to be able to lock the left out of competing next time, then they need to defeat the amendment.
TBF it's not just the left, it's anyone the MPs almost unanimously think is going to be rubbish at things they care about, like helping them keep their jobs.
You know the PLP better than I do, but if there was a left-wing candidate who looked like they'd be an electoral asset, they'd get the required 15%, no?
In the possibly overstated after-glow of the Tories' win in Copeland, coupled with the inevitability that Corbyn's time as Labour leader is drawing albeit excruciatingly slowly towards its end, now might be a good time to consider the prospect on there being no overall majority at the next General Election, which seems all the more likely should this not take place until the designated date in May 2020. After all, despite all the bullish talk about the Tories' prospects, right now the party is grappling with a majority barely into double figures, with at least some prospect of by-election losses over the next 3 years. The really huge potential banana skin, apart from the economy seriously going off the rails is a complete and utter foul-up of our Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU, which has to be a distinct possibility. Of course, were this to happen, the Tories would then be attributed with 100% of the blame, notwithstanding that a majority of Labour supporters also voted for "Leave" last year.
There is currently quite a wide discrepancy in the betting markets for there being no overall majority at the next GE (whenever that might be). Those nice folk at both Laddies and BetFred are offering 2/1, whilst Betfair' Sportsbook is much meaner with their price of just 5/4. Unless Corbyn, or one of his cronies is still running the Labour party in three years time, I think the GE result is likely to be much closer than currently appears likely and on this basis, I've had a couple of hundred on there be no overall majority next time.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Comments
Potentially they could replace the Labour Party as the main opponents to the Tories - but it won't be in 2020.
Doesn't mean they are not completely wrong about what is in Scotland's best interests of course.
I watched a Jesse Ventura intv yesterday and had no idea about how he was shut out by the media. He's a fascinating character - I'd no idea he was a SEAL, Havard lecturer, Mongol biker - as well as pro wrestler and Gov of Minnesota.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2P1L_7uHrY
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
The danger for the Tories is ending up with no deal and the economy tanking. In those circumstances I can see a party arguing for joining EEA/EFTA doing well in 2020.
Coalition memories will fade and will only be a long-term issue with far lefties. I think the majority of Labour voters would have no difficulty voting Lib Dem. I said "never again" in 2010 but would probably vote Lib Dem in in a Lib Dem/Tory marginal again now.
Maybe a few more Jamie Reeds in marginal seats might be looking through the jobs ads? A "Copeland" a month wouldn't take long before Corbyn ran out of excuses for losing.
My guess would be that in Inner London, Labour support for Remain was almost universal. In somewhere like Luton, probably 50/50.
"By and large, the Corbynistas have three distinguishing features. They know nothing about the Labour Party, they know nothing about politics and they know nothing about Britain."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4258470/Now-Tories-party-common-touch.html#ixzz4ZhBtUC00
Excellent.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
I think Corbyn will resign of his own accord once he knows he has a way of getting a preferred successor on the ballot. Even if he goes as late as 2018 - I still think that's plenty of time before the next election for a new leader to bed themselves in. I think most normal people will have forgotten about Corbyn provided he has stood down a least 12 months before the general election.
This would free up a lot of stock, but needs to be done with humanity, and time for people to move to new accommodation.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The next is the gaggle - that's an extended briefing with a smaller group of journalists with the Press Sec - it's pooled, so others get to hear the tape afterwards - but don't get the kudos of being part of the in-crowd that time.
Half a dozen of the lobby press weren't invited to the gaggle - they aren't banned from anything. Nor from saying anything. They're objecting to more conservative outlets getting a chance for a change.
Obama directly froze out Fox for years, tapped the phones of one of their journalists - and his parents - and investigated the phone records of 20 AP journalists. That's interfering by doing. Trump just hasn't asked half a dozen to the prom - it's naughty step time for them right now.
But yes, the gov't needs to make hard headed decisions on this and not just be guided by tabloid front pages.
Corbyn is stubborn, but for his beliefs not himself. I could easily see him taking the hit "I am not up to the job: here is someone who is" and the true believers who backed him in both 2015 and 2016 finding a new cause to rally behind.
The PLP were utter imbeciles to not understand their role had changed to gatekeepers. Instead of keeping the unacceptable off the ballot they supported a man they never wanted, and he ended up winning.
They should learn the lessons of recent history (as should those advocating carving England into little regional assemblies...).
Of course, if the centre-left don't care about Corbyn and simply want to be able to lock the left out of competing next time, then they need to defeat the amendment. But in that case they need to recognise that Corbyn won't be going anywhere any time soon.
I've got an article on this which will pop up on Labour List shortly.
Miliband couldn't get elected in the Labour Party of 2010 (which isn't the same as he couldn't *be* elected; he blew his chances with a complacent campaign and a stupid flippant comment about the unions); he certainly could get elected in the Labour Party of 2017.
But the last time the govt tried to nudge people out of too-big accommodation paid for by the state, it was labelled the "Bedroom Tax" amid the usual howls that Tories want to drive people out of "their homes".
It's another one of those good ideas that's politically impossible - maybe one for when one party or another has a 150 majority? In the meantime we need to get building, planning reform has to be an urgent priority.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/house/house-magazine/83596/lord-newby-article-50-bill-not-end
Corbyn has a personal brand that may not translate to other similar politicians. He is also vulnerable on brexit - labour members I think will be open to a more forceful opposition to brexit. I also think many on the left would be a fairly big electoral improvement to Corbyn without being enormously different politically.
Bottom line. To win/do respectably at the next election - Labour must be a united party led by someone else. Both conditions must hold.
.@johndubskierx I don't hate all pensioners just the extremists.Can't you see this country is being taken over by hate extremist pensioners.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/10452757/Labour+seats+in+the+next+UK+General+Election.html
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/835449316810588160
http://labourlist.org/2017/02/were-meant-to-gain-100-seats-at-the-next-election-keeping-our-own-should-be-the-easy-bit-says-tom-watson/
Anyway, I anticipate Mercedes and Red Bull being a cut above the rest, probably in the same order as last year. Third place is intriguing. Force India have said they're aiming for it (elsewhere, Renault reckon they'll easily beat Force India. Not so sure). Williams may be contenders. I still think Ferrari will slide backwards.
McLaren are intriguing. Genuinely a possible podium-contender. Could they return to winning ways? I do think it's credible, although an outside chance. They have a lot of ground to make up and have taken risks with development (necessary, as Alonso said).
I suspect Haas will struggle. Just a gut feeling. They benefited a lot from Ferrari support (all legitimate, of course) but that'll diminish now they're actually in the sport, and regulation changes require new designs. Grosjean's a good driver but he doesn't thrive in adversity (his radio last year was frustrated as a eunuch at an orgy).
If Brexit goes wrong it will happen in weeks or months and it will upset a lot of apple carts.
That 10/3 is better than the 3.35 (12/5) on Betfair for Corbyn to still be in place at the GE, and might be considered a reasonable proxy looking at the current opinion polls.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.121876619
Corbyn really is utterly toxic for Labour.
A slump to much worse than 1983 must be highly possible.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Edit - actually I think may be being unfair. Jones started out a few years back as a typical metropolitan liberal idiot, naive, arrogant and spectacularly ill-informed, who might fairly be compared to everyone's favourite fantasist, forger and liar Johann Hari. But to his very great credit he has learned, he has worked and he is getting better. He is no John Harris yet, but I would say his work is now better and more worthwhile than Her Polyness or on the other side, Janet Daley.
If there were suitable places (say 1-2 bed retirement chalets, within walking distance) then a half dozen family homes would be available. At the moment my suburb is greying and the school importing pupils from out of area because youngsters cannot get a house here.
Only the social housed have the right to stay on, whatever their finances, I do not. Indeed I plan to downsize myself in a few years.
Edit: damn you @ydoethur, getting there first!
https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/835219520541364225
If we're dumb enough to want to Rejoin, the price will certainly include joining the euro and Schengen.
It is only a couple of weeks ago that people with Visas found they expired in mid-flight over the Atlantic. Why RISK a few thousand on a holiday or trip that can be arbitrarily cancelled for no apparent reason. You might not get your money back.
I'll stop there before we have any even more strained Brexit metaphors about the fast track to an open world...
But A500 doesn't make for a good topical joke
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicer
What else do Labour have?
Economic policy? guffaw
A party that has an argument as to whether it's ok to put the flag of their country on their literature deserves to die.
Think the difference between Germany (everything that is not permitted is banned) and Britain (everything which is not banned is permitted)
You know the PLP better than I do, but if there was a left-wing candidate who looked like they'd be an electoral asset, they'd get the required 15%, no?