The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
He wrote the truth brother. The right-wing headbanging trash that live on this blog will not be pleased.
Seems to me the message is there is a host of evidence labour, and therefore the people it wants to help like the poor and disadvantaged, will not benefit from corbyn being in place. That if people want to advance core labour values, and provide better governance to boot, the membership needs to realise they will achieve none of that under present leadership, and there is only one way the excuses for poor performance will fall on deaf ears, and that's a ge loss.
I feel like Roger is reading a lot more malice at the labour brand into that than is warranted. It may be wrong, or based on misinterpretation of facts, if one cares to argue that, but the piece wants labour to at the least provide more co Pete the opposition, which is not the view of illiberal headbangers.
To sum up cyclefrees eloquent piece Labour should pack it's bags and disappear because she doesn't like their underlying ethos of tolerance and compassion and it could reform in a shape more to her liking.
To use her own words;
"They would own the defeat. And that defeat, that failure would free up a new leader to do the hard thinking needed, to be ruthless rather than sentimental about the Left’s rubbish ideas and nauseating tolerance of illiberal violent groups, to build a Labour party that reaches out and listens to those whose votes it seeks".
You seem to have latched onto "to be ruthless rather than sentimental" without then reading what she wanted Labour to be ruthless about. Do you think tolerance of illiberal violent groups is a good thing?
I don't particularly agree with cylefree's designation of 'illiberal violent groups' which generally refers to those with a different world view to her own so I don't agree with making pariahs of those who are prepared to speak to those groups.
You don't think the IRA were violent or illiberal? Well, that's a somewhat novel point of view I must confess I would not have considered.
As for speaking to them, speaking to them in a bid to end the violence is one thing, speaking to them while they are still committed to it is quite another.
You still seem to have no comment on Holocaust Denial or the Islington children's home scandal.
Agree totally. There are some other groups that could be added to that list that shouldn't take too much thinking about. Need to go and teach...
After months of wrangling, Theresa May and Philip Hammond have agreed that something needs to be done to deal with a crisis in provision for the elderly that is causing chaos in the NHS as well as anxiety for families. The chancellor will announce in the budget next week that there will be extra money to relieve pressure on councils who are struggling to cope with rising demand. What is more interesting, however, is that the government is considering longer term reform that goes far beyond what both the Treasury and Downing Street see as the “sticking plaster” solution of a short-term injection of cash.
The debate around the cabinet table has moved away from the need to raise resources and on to the balance between the taxation of wealth and work. One cabinet minister told me: “There is an issue about inheritance. Should someone be able to pass their house on to their children without paying the cost of care or can you get access to some of that money?” The chancellor is among those who are convinced that those who can afford to make a contribution should pay.
Huzzah! If this is true and someone is finally trying to yew wrangle with this and find a way to get some money to sort it out. Still think they would be better with a cross-party Royal Commission. Although an additional tax on death would not be opposed by Labour presumably.
Yes somebody needs to come after the baby boomers money - perhaps they've wisely concluded safest to do it after they're dead...
Well, last time this idea was floated Lansley killed it. Let's see if wiser heads prevail this time.
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I wonder whether Carswell's actions in blocking Lord Nigel have really served the nation well though. Surely, seeing that grandstanding buffoon in ermine would have been the best argument for House of Lords abolition?
@Cyclefree. Goddammit. You're giving me a complex. You write so well. Excellent article.
However, much as it pains me, I do agree with @DavidL. The hard Left (with their unlovely opposites on the Right) are zealots. They have faith. Faith does not admit reason. There is always the 'Other' to blame for defeat. Just as millennial cults are immune to the failure of prophecy, so the Left will always look for external scapegoats, including, at the last, the electorate.
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I fully expect him and Aaron Banks to announce the new English Nationalist Party any day now. Funding from Banks, focus entirely on immigration and related issues.
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I wonder whether Carswell's actions in blocking Lord Nigel have really served the nation well though. Surely, seeing that grandstanding buffoon in ermine would have been the best argument for House of Lords abolition?
I thought it was a knighthood he was supposed to get?
Farage has wanted him out for awhile anyway, not like he needed another excuse.
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
He wrote the truth brother. The right-wing headbanging trash that live on this blog will not be pleased.
The problem is how widely one throws around the insulting labels, how varied a set of opinion one encapsulates, purely in the interests of provocation.
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
The problem, I think, is that his worldview doesn't seem to include the concept of taking the right decision for the wrong reason. Therefore because some people voted Leave for what he sees as bad reasons, to him that makes Leave a bad decision and therefore everyone who supported it is beyond the pale.
And those people are a majority. It's no wonder he's been so unhinged for so many months.
After months of wrangling, Theresa May and Philip Hammond have agreed that something needs to be done to deal with a crisis in provision for the elderly that is causing chaos in the NHS as well as anxiety for families. The chancellor will announce in the budget next week that there will be extra money to relieve pressure on councils who are struggling to cope with rising demand. What is more interesting, however, is that the government is considering longer term reform that goes far beyond what both the Treasury and Downing Street see as the “sticking plaster” solution of a short-term injection of cash.
The debate around the cabinet table has moved away from the need to raise resources and on to the balance between the taxation of wealth and work. One cabinet minister told me: “There is an issue about inheritance. Should someone be able to pass their house on to their children without paying the cost of care or can you get access to some of that money?” The chancellor is among those who are convinced that those who can afford to make a contribution should pay.
Given the Tory manifesto commitment to exclude the family home from care costs Tory voters and members will rightly oppose any suggestion of backtracking on this. Given almost 40% of the country now rent anyway it will not do enough to solve the problem, the only solution for social care is highly National Insurance on the 50 to 65s. Given UKIP opposition to inheritance tax for the middle-class if Hammond even considered this UKIP would see a faster rise than Lazarus with many Tory voters defecting to them in protest. For Tories the family home is sacred
@Cyclefree. Goddammit. You're giving me a complex. You write so well. Excellent article.
However, much as it pains me, I do agree with @DavidL. The hard Left (with their unlovely opposites on the Right) are zealots. They have faith. Faith does not admit reason. There is always the 'Other' to blame for defeat. Just as millennial cults are immune to the failure of prophecy, so the Left will always look for external scapegoats, including, at the last, the electorate.
I feel like she acknowledged that. The zealots on any side will always try to blame others to the bitter end. It's a question of how many zealots there are and what it would take for most non zealot supporters to countenance a rethink. At present in part due to dearth of ideas, labour members want corbyn to have a chance. Most of them will not be zealots. Therefore, would they cone to their senses with a ge loss? Probably.
An interesting article but bereft of the key insight - a General Election defeat would be Blair's fault. Copeland was lost in 2007 because of Blair apparently - yes I know the seat elected 3 Blair government MPs and Blair left office a decade ago but its definitely Blair. So even if Labour did go down to even 120 seats that would only prove that Blair has destroyed the party and only Corbyn can restore true socialism.
But it won't get that far. There may be a large number of new members who are politically naieve morons who believe Copeland was rigged and the MSM are in cahoots with Blair to pay people like me to destroy the party I've been a member of for 22 years. But the unions don't believe it. And they have to deal with the real world disaster that is Tory government. So they will remove him to save the movement.
Pivotal to this is Unite. We know that a lot of Unite members are deeply unhappy with McClusky politicising the union as a Corbyn-front as opposed to a trade union working for its members. So witness the absolute silence from him this last week. Previously he would have been front and centre broadcasting his love for JC, instead we see and hear nothing.
The final showdown is this September's conference. They are clinging on hoping the McDonnell amendment - reducing the nomination threshhold to 5% in leadership contests - gets passed. But it won't, because the nutters haven't taken over CLPs who therefore will send non-nutter delegates. And then we have the unions, where only Unite are likely to back it and even then I have my doubts.
And their defeat would have been inflicted by the people, the very people on whose behalf the Left often claims to speak. They would own the defeat.
I admire your optimism. I fear one of the pathologies of the hard left (and Nationalists, while we're at it) is it's never their fault - there is always some 'other' to blame - only twice have I seen a major politician look its party in the eye and speak the unpalatable truth - May to the Tories and Kinnock to Labour - a dozen years before they regained power:
An interesting article but bereft of the key insight - a General Election defeat would be Blair's fault. Copeland was lost in 2007 because of Blair apparently - yes I know the seat elected 3 Blair government MPs and Blair left office a decade ago but its definitely Blair. So even if Labour did go down to even 120 seats that would only prove that Blair has destroyed the party and only Corbyn can restore true socialism.
But it won't get that far. There may be a large number of new members who are politically naieve morons who believe Copeland was rigged and the MSM are in cahoots with Blair to pay people like me to destroy the party I've been a member of for 22 years. But the unions don't believe it. And they have to deal with the real world disaster that is Tory government. So they will remove him to save the movement.
Pivotal to this is Unite. We know that a lot of Unite members are deeply unhappy with McClusky politicising the union as a Corbyn-front as opposed to a trade union working for its members. So witness the absolute silence from him this last week. Previously he would have been front and centre broadcasting his love for JC, instead we see and hear nothing.
The final showdown is this September's conference. They are clinging on hoping the McDonnell amendment - reducing the nomination threshhold to 5% in leadership contests - gets passed. But it won't, because the nutters haven't taken over CLPs who therefore will send non-nutter delegates. And then we have the unions, where only Unite are likely to back it and even then I have my doubts.
Jezza and co have alternative plan. By reducing the PLP to around 50 MPs following a GE wipeout they will only need a handful of nominations to get Rebecca whats-her-name on the ballot.
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I fully expect him and Aaron Banks to announce the new English Nationalist Party any day now. Funding from Banks, focus entirely on immigration and related issues.
Banks did after all say that immigration was the only role that UKIP had now.
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
See cyclefree picked the most complimentary photo. That I imagine sums up her thoughts without no need for the article. I am no Corbyn supporter and I want him to step down.However I think she has different motives for him to stay .
Cyclefree didn't choose the picture, I did.
As a general rule, most of the regular guest thread writers send me their pieces without a picture, I upload and format the article onto the PB servers, and I choose the most appropriate picture.
Mike then usually signs off on my choice of my picture by publishing the thread.
I chose the picture because, in my opinion, it captured the essence of Miss Cyclefree's piece, Corbyn wants to stay and that he should stay.
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It will be interesting to find out the background into why Shiromini was targeted. Was it just an over-zealous jobsworth or was it due to to pressure from an unreasingly xenophobic Conservative government.
Or because, thanks to the previous Conservative-led government's intervention in Sri Lanka* it's now safe and hence no longer eligible for asylum claims?
* which, tbf, you have previously credited them for
See cyclefree picked the most complimentary photo. That I imagine sums up her thoughts without no need for the article. I am no Corbyn supporter and I want him to step down.However I think she has different motives for him to stay .
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
He wrote the truth brother. The right-wing headbanging trash that live on this blog will not be pleased.
Another one with nothing to say so projects views onto others.
Labour should stand for a fair deal for the average Mr and Ms Briton.
Unfortunately, it's become overly bothered with the interests of minority groupings and has developed it's own interpretation of 'fairness' that is barely recognisable to the average man or woman.
See cyclefree picked the most complimentary photo. That I imagine sums up her thoughts without no need for the article. I am no Corbyn supporter and I want him to step down.However I think she has different motives for him to stay .
Cyclefree didn't choose the picture, I did.
As a general rule, most of the regular guest thread writers send me their pieces without a picture, I upload and format the article onto the PB servers, and I choose the most appropriate picture.
Mike then usually signs off on my choice of my picture by publishing the thread.
I chose the picture because, in my opinion, it captured the essence of Miss Cyclefree's piece, Corbyn wants to stay and that he should stay.
Are you sure you haven't mixed it up with a picture of Steptoe?
Labour should stand for a fair deal for the average Mr and Ms Briton.
Unfortunately, it's become overly bothered with the interests of minority groupings and has developed it's own interpretation of 'fairness' that is barely recognisable to the average man or woman.
The nutters keep banging on about the "working class". I've pointed out that most punters don't identify as such. And besides if we want class there's only two. If you have to get out of bed to work to pay your bills you're working class. If someone else gets out of their bed to pay your bills, you're not...
Have we debated the UKIP 'exclusive' in Telegraph. Seems Farage has decided he wants rid of their only MP.
Farage is miffed with Carswell for not endorsing his knighthood, things will calm down a tad when wiser heads point out that without Carswell, there will be no UKIP voice in parliament and no short money coming in. – Come GE2020, when UKIP MEPs are no more and Nuttall has stood down, I expect Carswell will be the last man standing.
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I wonder whether Carswell's actions in blocking Lord Nigel have really served the nation well though. Surely, seeing that grandstanding buffoon in ermine would have been the best argument for House of Lords abolition?
I thought it was a knighthood he was supposed to get?
Farage has wanted him out for awhile anyway, not like he needed another excuse.
See cyclefree picked the most complimentary photo. That I imagine sums up her thoughts without no need for the article. I am no Corbyn supporter and I want him to step down.However I think she has different motives for him to stay .
Cyclefree didn't choose the picture, I did.
As a general rule, most of the regular guest thread writers send me their pieces without a picture, I upload and format the article onto the PB servers, and I choose the most appropriate picture.
Mike then usually signs off on my choice of my picture by publishing the thread.
I chose the picture because, in my opinion, it captured the essence of Miss Cyclefree's piece, Corbyn wants to stay and that he should stay.
My apologies to Cyclefree my comment applies to you then.
Have we debated the UKIP 'exclusive' in Telegraph. Seems Farage has decided he wants rid of their only MP.
Farage is miffed with Carswell for not endorsing his knighthood, things will calm down a tad when wiser heads point out that without Carswell, there will be no UKIP voice in parliament and no short money coming in. – Come GE2020, when UKIP MEPs are no more and Nuttall has stood down, I expect Carswell will be the last man standing.
Several in ukip probably feel the party does not have a voice in parliament now anyway.
An interesting article but bereft of the key insight - a General Election defeat would be Blair's fault. Copeland was lost in 2007 because of Blair apparently - yes I know the seat elected 3 Blair government MPs and Blair left office a decade ago but its definitely Blair. So even if Labour did go down to even 120 seats that would only prove that Blair has destroyed the party and only Corbyn can restore true socialism.
But it won't get that far. There may be a large number of new members who are politically naieve morons who believe Copeland was rigged and the MSM are in cahoots with Blair to pay people like me to destroy the party I've been a member of for 22 years. But the unions don't believe it. And they have to deal with the real world disaster that is Tory government. So they will remove him to save the movement.
Pivotal to this is Unite. We know that a lot of Unite members are deeply unhappy with McClusky politicising the union as a Corbyn-front as opposed to a trade union working for its members. So witness the absolute silence from him this last week. Previously he would have been front and centre broadcasting his love for JC, instead we see and hear nothing.
The final showdown is this September's conference. They are clinging on hoping the McDonnell amendment - reducing the nomination threshhold to 5% in leadership contests - gets passed. But it won't, because the nutters haven't taken over CLPs who therefore will send non-nutter delegates. And then we have the unions, where only Unite are likely to back it and even then I have my doubts.
Everyone is thinking about the 5% threshold solely in terms of the left getting a candidate in. But a rule change like this can easily have unintended consequences.
At 15%... There can only be a maximum of six people on the ballot. That's a manageable number.
But at 5% you could have 20 people on the ballot! It probably wouldn't go that far... But even ten or fifteen makes a leadership debate almost impossible and means that the biggest struggle candidates have is just getting noticed...
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I wonder whether Carswell's actions in blocking Lord Nigel have really served the nation well though. Surely, seeing that grandstanding buffoon in ermine would have been the best argument for House of Lords abolition?
I thought it was a knighthood he was supposed to get?
Farage has wanted him out for awhile anyway, not like he needed another excuse.
Tory members and voters will go berserk if Hammond even considers a u turn on this as will the Mail, Telegraph and Express and UKIP will think Christmas has come early
Something like National Insurance could work better.
The problem with death tax is, disregarding a U-turn, it'll be the middle class (particularly at the lower end) that ends up paying. Those higher up will have advisers and accountants to help escape it.
There's also the NHS sacred cow. Free at the point of use, funded by taxation. But if you get Alzheimer's, then the cost of caring for that medical condition then becomes something individuals are expected to pay for. That will stick in the craw, again, of those who have some money but are not well-off. The rich will avoid what they can and can afford the rest. Those whose parents own their home and have a little savings will end up with far less.
A cross-party agreement is needed. This is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution.
Something like National Insurance could work better.
The problem with death tax is, disregarding a U-turn, it'll be the middle class (particularly at the lower end) that ends up paying. Those higher up will have advisers and accountants to help escape it.
There's also the NHS sacred cow. Free at the point of use, funded by taxation. But if you get Alzheimer's, then the cost of caring for that medical condition then becomes something individuals are expected to pay for. That will stick in the craw, again, of those who have some money but are not well-off. The rich will avoid what they can and can afford the rest. Those whose parents own their home and have a little savings will end up with far less.
A cross-party agreement is needed. This is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution.
You could have an across the board death tax, even the smallest estates paying 10%.
Rather than a death tax, the government should be establishing a compulsory at-retirement insurance market for future social care needs for those above given income levels (and not allowing pensions to be drawn below those income levels below given ages).
Morning all. Great article Ms @Cyclefree, and congratulations on joining Tories4Corbyn
Speaking of Tories, good to see their excellent whipping operation in the Lords last night, very impressive to see so many oldies out so late.
Oh, and did I really hear that Elon Musk is sending a private trip around the moon, next year? Thank God we have people like him around.
I doubt it'll be next year. They haven't flown the rocket yet (the Falcon Heavy), or the crew capsule (Dragon 2). Musk's pronouncements are always invariably optimistic wrt timescales.
I also foresee not a few regulatory issues.
It'll be 2019 at the earliest.
Still, exciting times. Now, where did I leave that spare hundred million?
But if you get Alzheimer's, then the cost of caring for that medical condition then becomes something individuals are expected to pay for. That will stick in the craw, again, of those who have some money but are not well-off. The rich will avoid what they can and can afford the rest. Those whose parents own their home and have a little savings will end up with far less.
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
I have known 2 people who have personally been deported
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
He wrote the truth brother. The right-wing headbanging trash that live on this blog will not be pleased.
I agree with SeanT's assessment of you.
Agreeing with SeanT's assessment of anything is dangerous, mainly because SeanT will vehemently hold the opposite opinion in a few days.
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
I have known 2 people who have personally been deported
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
He wrote the truth brother. The right-wing headbanging trash that live on this blog will not be pleased.
I agree with SeanT's assessment of you.
Agreeing with SeanT's assessment of anything is dangerous, mainly because SeanT will vehemently hold the opposite opinion in a few days.
I messed up the quoting, pressed refresh and only posted a few lines of what I wanted to do! My point still stands about about SeanT, though!
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
Well as someone on the centre-right I must say the responses to the header from PB Lefties are most encouraging. They can't see anything wrong with the policies or proposed program, are relaxed about Corbyn's friends and his views, and maintain that anything he is doing wrong is down to the Tories or the right-wing press. Let's just see how that goes down on the doorsteps shall we ? If Roger is representative of the views of bien pensant upper middle class Labour, they are truly screwed, because there is no chance of keeping him on board and the traditional old labour voter at the same time.
Regarding Cyclefree's header, I think she is way too optimistic, if JC takes Labour to a historic defeat it wont be his fault, in the same way as getting a shellacking in Copeland wasnt his fault, there will be a long list of scapegoats drawn up and flaunted. They might not convinced the voters, but they will convince enough of the selectorate to keep him, or one of his coterie in place, because as we known all it needs is one more heave comrades.
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I fully expect him and Aaron Banks to announce the new English Nationalist Party any day now. Funding from Banks, focus entirely on immigration and related issues.
On topic, an interesting and brave piece by Cyclefree but not one I agree with.
As she says, the country needs an opposition and Labour is best-placed to give it. Allowing the Tories three years' free run is not good for the country. Fortunately, Theresa May is not particularly ideological and not given to recklessness, which limits the risks somewhat - though some of her ministers are less on the pragmatist side.
But if Labour does go down that route, it may never recover. That would be the scale of the gamble. Does Labour really have a sufficient firewall to protect a base on which it could rebuild? Not in Scotland, once a solid heartland. There, Labour may be finished for good. if not, it will probably take at least 20 years to recover. The literal shock of repeated landslide defeats have shorn the party of two of its purposes: local machine politics and the anti-Tory vote. Without them, it is searching for a purpose and has yet to find one.
Labour in England and Wales is not in such a bad state but it is holed below the waterline and is sinking. That breach can be repaired but only if action is taken in time and only if the weather remains not too stormy.
As things stand, Labour has already polled 24 four times. Given the trend in polling and Labour's continuing uselessness, at some point it will poll 23, and commentators will note that it's the lowest ever recorded in opposition. And then it will poll 22. But while the red warning lights should be flashing and the klaxons sounding, they're not, because the party has collectively removed the batteries. Instead, the attitude will be "only one point worse than last month", while muttering about margin of error, worse under Brown and so on. It is denial writ large, despite all the electoral and polling evidence.
What is Labour's true core vote? To answer this, we need to first remember that not long ago (i.e. before 2010), people might have put the Lib Dems' core vote at about 14% and Scottish Labour's at about 35%: both at least double the true figure. Labour in the 2009 Euro elections polled 16%, which gives an indication of what its positive support was eight years ago, with a leader who was a credible PM (if not a very good one), which at least tried to engage with public concerns and which understood what the political game was about.
My guess is that Labour's true core vote today is little more than 10%.
If Corbyn is left in place, the accuracy of that guess might well be tested.
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
As a lawyer I am sure Meeks didn't mean make equivalence between the cases of a person that had been unlawfully in the UK without a visa for three years and would have had you deported from just about any country in the world, and a person that had their asylum claim rejected and that had previously received assurances that they could stay and complete their course.
Have we debated the UKIP 'exclusive' in Telegraph. Seems Farage has decided he wants rid of their only MP.
Farage is miffed with Carswell for not endorsing his knighthood, things will calm down a tad when wiser heads point out that without Carswell, there will be no UKIP voice in parliament and no short money coming in. – Come GE2020, when UKIP MEPs are no more and Nuttall has stood down, I expect Carswell will be the last man standing.
All of which is why the Prime Minister should have offered Carswell a peerage.
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
BETRAYAL BETRAYAL and thrice BETRAYAL!!
Are you being serious? You think 'Socialist Liberal Elites' are why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020?
So Nigel Farage is seeking to have Douglas Carswell expelled from UKIP for opposing his own knighthood? UKIP has literally become a vanity project.
Douglas Carswell has already more or less said that the only reason he hasn't reratted to the Conservatives is because he doesn't want to fight yet another by-election, so being expelled would presumably give him the excuse to avoid doing exactly that. So Nigel Farage is doing Douglas Carswell a favour while hastening UKIP's demise.
If Carswell goes, there's no Short money. And after the success of making their MEPs soon to be redundant - where does the money come from to fight the next General Election?
It's an exquisite dilemma.
It's not a dilemma. Nigel Farage is winding up UKIP without notifying the current management.
I fully expect him and Aaron Banks to announce the new English Nationalist Party any day now. Funding from Banks, focus entirely on immigration and related issues.
Could it reach 4m votes in 2020?
Farage pretty conclusively ruled out his involvement on LBC last night. Which doesn't mean it won't happen, of course. But his central point - that the effort and stress of starting again from scratch would be huge - is credible coming from someone who has done it once before and, in his mid-50s, clearly enjoys life's comforts.
On topic, an interesting and brave piece by Cyclefree but not one I agree with.
As she says, the country needs an opposition and Labour is best-placed to give it. Allowing the Tories three years' free run is not good for the country. Fortunately, Theresa May is not particularly ideological and not given to recklessness, which limits the risks somewhat - though some of her ministers are less on the pragmatist side.
But if Labour does go down that route, it may never recover. That would be the scale of the gamble. Does Labour really have a sufficient firewall to protect a base on which it could rebuild? Not in Scotland, once a solid heartland. There, Labour may be finished for good. if not, it will probably take at least 20 years to recover. The literal shock of repeated landslide defeats have shorn the party of two of its purposes: local machine politics and the anti-Tory vote. Without them, it is searching for a purpose and has yet to find one.
Labour in England and Wales is not in such a bad state but it is holed below the waterline and is sinking. That breach can be repaired but only if action is taken in time and only if the weather remains not too stormy.
As things stand, Labour has already polled 24 four times. Given the trend in polling and Labour's continuing uselessness, at some point it will poll 23, and commentators will note that it's the lowest ever recorded in opposition. And then it will poll 22. But while the red warning lights should be flashing and the klaxons sounding, they're not, because the party has collectively removed the batteries. Instead, the attitude will be "only one point worse than last month", while muttering about margin of error, worse under Brown and so on. It is denial writ large, despite all the electoral and polling evidence.
What is Labour's true core vote? To answer this, we need to first remember that not long ago (i.e. before 2010), people might have put the Lib Dems' core vote at about 14% and Scottish Labour's at about 35%: both at least double the true figure. Labour in the 2009 Euro elections polled 16%, which gives an indication of what its positive support was eight years ago, with a leader who was a credible PM (if not a very good one), which at least tried to engage with public concerns and which understood what the political game was about.
My guess is that Labour's true core vote today is little more than 10%.
If Corbyn is left in place, the accuracy of that guess might well be tested.
Since the peak Tory vote is considerably lower than 90%, given the number of people who would never vote for them come what may (pun intended), that would make for an interesting election.
And their defeat would have been inflicted by the people, the very people on whose behalf the Left often claims to speak. They would own the defeat.
I admire your optimism. I fear one of the pathologies of the hard left (and Nationalists, while we're at it) is it's never their fault - there is always some 'other' to blame - only twice have I seen a major politician look its party in the eye and speak the unpalatable truth - May to the Tories and Kinnock to Labour - a dozen years before they regained power:
ttps://youtu.be/bWLN7rIby9s
Where is Labour's Kinnock today?
Still at school?
Thank you @Cyclefree, a good header. And let’s hope that there are enough decent people left with the courage and determination necessary to build a left of centre party fit for the 21st century.
That bit makes me weep. Really. I'm not ashamed to be mourning the passing of a political party that had such high objectives & ideals.
Regarding Cyclefree's header, I think she is way too optimistic, if JC takes Labour to a historic defeat it wont be his fault, in the same way as getting a shellacking in Copeland wasnt his fault, there will be a long list of scapegoats drawn up and flaunted.
Exactly right, it will be another "it's not us, it's the electorate". Politicians on the Left are never wrong they lose elections because the WWC are stupid and uneducated, or some of voters are fruitcakes and closet racists (to be fair that was Dave putting his foot in it), or they are deplorables, etc.
It's hard to understand why the voters do not flock to such parties that hold them in such high esteem.
Well as someone on the centre-right I must say the responses to the header from PB Lefties are most encouraging. They can't see anything wrong with the policies or proposed program, are relaxed about Corbyn's friends and his views, and maintain that anything he is doing wrong is down to the Tories or the right-wing press. Let's just see how that goes down on the doorsteps shall we ? If Roger is representative of the views of bien pensant upper middle class Labour, they are truly screwed, because there is no chance of keeping him on board and the traditional old labour voter at the same time.
Regarding Cyclefree's header, I think she is way too optimistic, if JC takes Labour to a historic defeat it wont be his fault, in the same way as getting a shellacking in Copeland wasnt his fault, there will be a long list of scapegoats drawn up and flaunted. They might not convinced the voters, but they will convince enough of the selectorate to keep him, or one of his coterie in place, because as we known all it needs is one more heave comrades.
As ever in these things, though, it isn't what the true devotees think that actually matters. What matters is the views of the silent majority of members-in-the-middle who will eventually determine, one way or the other.
Labour clearly are in trouble, but UKIP look to be heading for the rocks. They're pretty much rudderless and their only MP obviously doesn't want to be a member any longer. There doesn't seem to be any point to them. Farage is clearly a clever bloke and new it was the time bail out.
On topic, an interesting and brave piece by Cyclefree but not one I agree with.
As she says, the country needs an opposition and Labour is best-placed to give it. Allowing the Tories three years' free run is not good for the country. Fortunately, Theresa May is not particularly ideological and not given to recklessness, which limits the risks somewhat - though some of her ministers are less on the pragmatist side.
But if Labour does go down that route, it may never recover. That would be the scale of the gamble. Does Labour really have a sufficient firewall to protect a base on which it could rebuild? Not in Scotland, once a solid heartland. There, Labour may be finished for good. if not, it will probably take at least 20 years to recover. The literal shock of repeated landslide defeats have shorn the party of two of its purposes: local machine politics and the anti-Tory vote. Without them, it is searching for a purpose and has yet to find one.
Labour in England and Wales is not in such a bad state but it is holed below the waterline and is sinking. That breach can be repaired but only if action is taken in time and only if the weather remains not too stormy.
As things stand, Labour has already polled 24 four times. Given the trend in polling and Labour's continuing uselessness, at some point it will poll 23, and commentators will note that it's the lowest ever recorded in opposition. And then it will poll 22. But while the red warning lights should be flashing and the klaxons sounding, they're not, because the party has collectively removed the batteries. Instead, the attitude will be "only one point worse than last month", while muttering about margin of error, worse under Brown and so on. It is denial writ large, despite all the electoral and polling evidence.
What is Labour's true core vote? To answer this, we need to first remember that not long ago (i.e. before 2010), people might have put the Lib Dems' core vote at about 14% and Scottish Labour's at about 35%: both at least double the true figure. Labour in the 2009 Euro elections polled 16%, which gives an indication of what its positive support was eight years ago, with a leader who was a credible PM (if not a very good one), which at least tried to engage with public concerns and which understood what the political game was about.
My guess is that Labour's true core vote today is little more than 10%.
If Corbyn is left in place, the accuracy of that guess might well be tested.
Since the peak Tory vote is considerably lower than 90%, given the number of people who would never vote for them come what may (pun intended), that would make for an interesting election.
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
BETRAYAL BETRAYAL and thrice BETRAYAL!!
Are you being serious? You think 'Socialist Liberal Elites' are why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020?
In 2020 just replace the words "Copeland" with "Election"
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
As a lawyer I am sure Meeks didn't mean make equivalence between the cases of a person that had been unlawfully in the UK without a visa for three years and would have had you deported from just about any country in the world, and a person that had their asylum claim rejected and that had previously received assurances that they could stay and complete their course.
As a lawyer I make only the observation that the system has - quite properly - discretion built into it to deal with cases that don't fit the rules well.
As a lawyer, I also note with sadness but not surprise the shrivelled-hearted response of a group that exactly overlaps with the more... intense... Leavers to a case that called out as a matter of basic decency for sympathy and a completely misguided "rules are rules" attitude.
Labour clearly are in trouble, but UKIP look to be heading for the rocks. They're pretty much rudderless and their only MP obviously doesn't want to be a member any longer. There doesn't seem to be any point to them. Farage is clearly a clever bloke and new it was the time bail out.
There is a point to UKIP whilst we are still in the EU, but the party needs better leadership and candidates.
Morning all. Great article Ms @Cyclefree, and congratulations on joining Tories4Corbyn
Speaking of Tories, good to see their excellent whipping operation in the Lords last night, very impressive to see so many oldies out so late.
Oh, and did I really hear that Elon Musk is sending a private trip around the moon, next year? Thank God we have people like him around.
I doubt it'll be next year. They haven't flown the rocket yet (the Falcon Heavy), or the crew capsule (Dragon 2). Musk's pronouncements are always invariably optimistic wrt timescales.
I also foresee not a few regulatory issues.
It'll be 2019 at the earliest.
Still, exciting times. Now, where did I leave that spare hundred million?
I reckon 2020 at the earliest probably, and more likely 2021.
Although if the Falcon Heavy Demo mission can launch an unmanned Dragon cis-lunar...
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
BETRAYAL BETRAYAL and thrice BETRAYAL!!
Are you being serious? You think 'Socialist Liberal Elites' are why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020?
"Flag of convenience Non Socialist Liberal Elites" is what I said.
Their 2016 behaviour and ongoing non cooperation with Jezza IS why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020.
Mr. Indigo, if Labour is led by Corbyn into a 2020 General Election it's be an intriguing conundrum as to whether the polls are over-estimating Labour or not.
The last one was meant to be a dead heat, after all.
Morning all. Great article Ms @Cyclefree, and congratulations on joining Tories4Corbyn
Speaking of Tories, good to see their excellent whipping operation in the Lords last night, very impressive to see so many oldies out so late.
Oh, and did I really hear that Elon Musk is sending a private trip around the moon, next year? Thank God we have people like him around.
I doubt it'll be next year. They haven't flown the rocket yet (the Falcon Heavy), or the crew capsule (Dragon 2). Musk's pronouncements are always invariably optimistic wrt timescales.
I also foresee not a few regulatory issues.
It'll be 2019 at the earliest.
Still, exciting times. Now, where did I leave that spare hundred million?
I reckon 2020 at the earliest probably, and more likely 2021.
Although if the Falcon Heavy Demo mission can launch an unmanned Dragon cis-lunar...
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
He wrote the truth brother. The right-wing headbanging trash that live on this blog will not be pleased.
Another one with nothing to say so projects views onto others.
I thought it was either parody or supreme lack of self awareness..
On topic, an interesting and brave piece by Cyclefree but not one I agree with.
As she says, the country needs an opposition and Labour is best-placed to give it. Allowing the Tories three years' free run is not good for the country. Fortunately, Theresa May is not particularly ideological and not given to recklessness, which limits the risks somewhat - though some of her ministers are less on the pragmatist side.
But if Labour does go down that route, it may never recover. That would be the scale of the gamble. Does Labour really have a sufficient firewall to protect a base on which it could rebuild? Not in Scotland, once a solid heartland. There, Labour may be finished for good. if not, it will probably take at least 20 years to recover. The literal shock of repeated landslide defeats have shorn the party of two of its purposes: local machine politics and the anti-Tory vote. Without them, it is searching for a purpose and has yet to find one.
Labour in England and Wales is not in such a bad state but it is holed below the waterline and is sinking. That breach can be repaired but only if action is taken in time and only if the weather remains not too stormy.
As things stand, Labour has already polled 24 four times. Given the trend in polling and Labour's continuing uselessness, at some point it will poll 23, and commentators will note that it's the lowest ever recorded in opposition. And then it will poll 22. But while the red warning lights should be flashing and the klaxons sounding, they're not, because the party has collectively removed the batteries. Instead, the attitude will be "only one point worse than last month", while muttering about margin of error, worse under Brown and so on. It is denial writ large, despite all the electoral and polling evidence.
What is Labour's true core vote? To answer this, we need to first remember that not long ago (i.e. before 2010), people might have put the Lib Dems' core vote at about 14% and Scottish Labour's at about 35%: both at least double the true figure. Labour in the 2009 Euro elections polled 16%, which gives an indication of what its positive support was eight years ago, with a leader who was a credible PM (if not a very good one), which at least tried to engage with public concerns and which understood what the political game was about.
My guess is that Labour's true core vote today is little more than 10%.
If Corbyn is left in place, the accuracy of that guess might well be tested.
Since the peak Tory vote is considerably lower than 90%, given the number of people who would never vote for them come what may (pun intended), that would make for an interesting election.
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
BETRAYAL BETRAYAL and thrice BETRAYAL!!
Are you being serious? You think 'Socialist Liberal Elites' are why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020?
Flag of convenience Non Socialist Liberal Elites is what I said.
Their 2016 behaviour and ongoing non cooperation with Jezza IS why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020.
Any normal politician would have resigned after the "2016 behaviour", irrespective of whether it was merited or not. The fact that Corbyn didn't is proof that he has no interest in parliamentary politics which, like it or not, are crucial to power in this country. The public and the media know that. For him to continue in office when it's clear his position is untenable is selfish and absurd.
Regarding Cyclefree's header, I think she is way too optimistic, if JC takes Labour to a historic defeat it wont be his fault, in the same way as getting a shellacking in Copeland wasnt his fault, there will be a long list of scapegoats drawn up and flaunted.
Exactly right, it will be another "it's not us, it's the electorate". Politicians on the Left are never wrong they lose elections because the WWC are stupid and uneducated, or some of voters are fruitcakes and closet racists (to be fair that was Dave putting his foot in it), or they are deplorables, etc.
It's hard to understand why the voters do not flock to such parties that hold them in such high esteem.
That's one of the most curious features of modern politics. Historically, politicians have tried to win as much support from as many different groups as possible. But, in our era, you get politicians who make no attempt to hide their contempt for large sections of the electorate.
The basic premise of Cyclefree's article is right. Socialism doesn't work. The harder you push for it the harder you fail. Go to Venezuela or Cuba or Greece if you disagree. This poses the hard left with a challenge - in a small c conservative country. Accept that you're on a hiding to nothing and are basically wrong. This will not happen. Leftyism is a religion. Or... let the people decide. They are not stupid and will advise that socialism is for the birds. But at least this route, via an election drubbing, offers the Labour party a chance to row back from socialism more towards a policy agenda that isn't insane.
BBC F1 livefeed already suggesting the Ferrari might not be a million miles away based on headline lap times from day one.
Last year, the Mercedes wasn't even in the top six on the first day.
I realise journalists have to write stuff and keep a livefeed ticking over, (it's legitimate to point out that the Ferrari time was on the medium tyre, the Mercedes time on the soft) but the variability of fuel levels and engine modes makes a direct comparison, without that information, just about worthless.
As she says, the country needs an opposition and Labour is best-placed to give it. Allowing the Tories three years' free run is not good for the country. Fortunately, Theresa May is not particularly ideological and not given to recklessness, which limits the risks somewhat - though some of her ministers are less on the pragmatist side.
But if Labour does go down that route, it may never recover. That would be the scale of the gamble. Does Labour really have a sufficient firewall to protect a base on which it could rebuild? Not in Scotland, once a solid heartland. There, Labour may be finished for good. if not, it will probably take at least 20 years to recover. The literal shock of repeated landslide defeats have shorn the party of two of its purposes: local machine politics and the anti-Tory vote. Without them, it is searching for a purpose and has yet to find one.
Labour in England and Wales is not in such a bad state but it is holed below the waterline and is sinking. That breach can be repaired but only if action is taken in time and only if the weather remains not too stormy.
As things stand, Labour has already polled 24 four times. Given the trend in polling and Labour's continuing uselessness, at some point it will poll 23, and commentators will note that it's the lowest ever recorded in opposition. And then it will poll 22. But while the red warning lights should be flashing and the klaxons sounding, they're not, because the party has collectively removed the batteries. Instead, the attitude will be "only one point worse than last month", while muttering about margin of error, worse under Brown and so on. It is denial writ large, despite all the electoral and polling evidence.
What is Labour's true core vote? To answer this, we need to first remember that not long ago (i.e. before 2010), people might have put the Lib Dems' core vote at about 14% and Scottish Labour's at about 35%: both at least double the true figure. Labour in the 2009 Euro elections polled 16%, which gives an indication of what its positive support was eight years ago, with a leader who was a credible PM (if not a very good one), which at least tried to engage with public concerns and which understood what the political game was about.
My guess is that Labour's true core vote today is little more than 10%.
If Corbyn is left in place, the accuracy of that guess might well be tested.
Since the peak Tory vote is considerably lower than 90%, given the number of people who would never vote for them come what may (pun intended), that would make for an interesting election.
That's one of the most curious features of modern politics. Historically, politicians have tried to win as much support from as many different groups as possible. But, in our era, you get politicians who make no attempt to hide their contempt for large sections of the electorate.
It does seem to be a peculiarity of modern politics. I wonder if it is partly driven by modern media, in the past politicians were often criticised for trying to be "All things to all men" by saying different things to different groups in different places. Modern media, and social media, makes it much harder to get away with such campaigning when every contradictory position will be exposed to scrutiny. So perhaps instead we see a deliberate dismissal of some groups in an attempt to shore up the support of supportive groups.
Personally I would have thought that it's best to avoid being rude about bits of the electorate even if you can't offer them what they want.
Could someone who is mathematically much smarter than me tell me what level of poll share drop makes UNS unsafe to continue using for a main party? Instinctively I feel uncomfortable using it when imagining Labour dropping below 20% (from the 31% they polled last time) but I have no foundation for that gut feeling.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Ukip’s former leader, initially tried to organise a peerage for Mr Farage, backed by Ukip peer Lord Willoughby de Broke, last July in the wake of the EU referendum. But these plans were dropped when the pair realised Mr Farage would have to resign as an MEP first before being allowed to accept the peerage.
Con 449, Lab 77, Lib Dem 35, UKIP 10, Green 1, SNP 54.
Con majority of 248
Lab would do worse and LD, UKIP better that Baxter suggests. Labour would score a lot of useless 3-5%s, and lose enough from the seats they hold to repeat the Lib Dem experience from 2015. By contrast, LD would regain more off Con and take some direct from Lab because Con would be actively targeting the Lab vote and leaving places like Cheadle, Yeovil or Twickenham to struggle.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Ukip’s former leader, initially tried to organise a peerage for Mr Farage, backed by Ukip peer Lord Willoughby de Broke, last July in the wake of the EU referendum. But these plans were dropped when the pair realised Mr Farage would have to resign as an MEP first before being allowed to accept the peerage.
Something like National Insurance could work better.
The problem with death tax is, disregarding a U-turn, it'll be the middle class (particularly at the lower end) that ends up paying. Those higher up will have advisers and accountants to help escape it.
There's also the NHS sacred cow. Free at the point of use, funded by taxation. But if you get Alzheimer's, then the cost of caring for that medical condition then becomes something individuals are expected to pay for. That will stick in the craw, again, of those who have some money but are not well-off. The rich will avoid what they can and can afford the rest. Those whose parents own their home and have a little savings will end up with far less.
A cross-party agreement is needed. This is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution.
Perhaps the woes of the Labour party are providing the Conservatives with a chance to tackle a long-term project.
Mr Blair had a wonderful chance, with everything going for it then. This is a horrible chance, with very little going for it now. But it could still be a chance. Making opportunity out of adversity, or something.
Miss JGP, Blair isn't castigated sufficiently for blowing a great chance to improve things. The UK was in good shape when he came to power and instead of reforms, he splurged money on just about everything except Defence, which he treated like a joyrider with a Dodge Viper, and threw away half the nation's rebate.
We could've put ourselves on a much sounder long-term footing. Suppose in 1997 National Insurance on the elderly had been imposed, and that money placed in some sort of fund to finance projects to benefit the elderly (and, if it brought in more than it cost, the extra could've been lent at interest).
A surplus could've been established to put the finances in better shape.
But with Blair, everything was tactical. He had no interest in the nation's interest, his goal was to win the game. And he did. Screwed up a lot of things for the country, but there we are.
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
BETRAYAL BETRAYAL and thrice BETRAYAL!!
Are you being serious? You think 'Socialist Liberal Elites' are why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020?
Flag of convenience Non Socialist Liberal Elites is what I said.
Their 2016 behaviour and ongoing non cooperation with Jezza IS why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020.
Any normal politician would have resigned after the "2016 behaviour", irrespective of whether it was merited or not. The fact that Corbyn didn't is proof that he has no interest in parliamentary politics which, like it or not, are crucial to power in this country. The public and the media know that. For him to continue in office when it's clear his position is untenable is selfish and absurd.</blockquote
What would Trump do?
Corbyn like Trump is not "Any normal politician"
As for your 10% theory. Its about as tenable as Flag of convenience Non Socialist Liberal Elites positioning not being described as untenable selfish and absurd.
Comments
I feel like Roger is reading a lot more malice at the labour brand into that than is warranted. It may be wrong, or based on misinterpretation of facts, if one cares to argue that, but the piece wants labour to at the least provide more co Pete the opposition, which is not the view of illiberal headbangers.
Need to go and teach...
@Cyclefree. Goddammit. You're giving me a complex. You write so well. Excellent article.
However, much as it pains me, I do agree with @DavidL. The hard Left (with their unlovely opposites on the Right) are zealots. They have faith. Faith does not admit reason. There is always the 'Other' to blame for defeat. Just as millennial cults are immune to the failure of prophecy, so the Left will always look for external scapegoats, including, at the last, the electorate.
Farage has wanted him out for awhile anyway, not like he needed another excuse.
And those people are a majority. It's no wonder he's been so unhinged for so many months.
But it won't get that far. There may be a large number of new members who are politically naieve morons who believe Copeland was rigged and the MSM are in cahoots with Blair to pay people like me to destroy the party I've been a member of for 22 years. But the unions don't believe it. And they have to deal with the real world disaster that is Tory government. So they will remove him to save the movement.
Pivotal to this is Unite. We know that a lot of Unite members are deeply unhappy with McClusky politicising the union as a Corbyn-front as opposed to a trade union working for its members. So witness the absolute silence from him this last week. Previously he would have been front and centre broadcasting his love for JC, instead we see and hear nothing.
The final showdown is this September's conference. They are clinging on hoping the McDonnell amendment - reducing the nomination threshhold to 5% in leadership contests - gets passed. But it won't, because the nutters haven't taken over CLPs who therefore will send non-nutter delegates. And then we have the unions, where only Unite are likely to back it and even then I have my doubts.
As a general rule, most of the regular guest thread writers send me their pieces without a picture, I upload and format the article onto the PB servers, and I choose the most appropriate picture.
Mike then usually signs off on my choice of my picture by publishing the thread.
I chose the picture because, in my opinion, it captured the essence of Miss Cyclefree's piece, Corbyn wants to stay and that he should stay.
* which, tbf, you have previously credited them for
https://order-order.com/2017/02/28/hammond-blasted-labours-shocking-death-taxes-as-terrible-solution/
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/836499650353954816
Unfortunately, it's become overly bothered with the interests of minority groupings and has developed it's own interpretation of 'fairness' that is barely recognisable to the average man or woman.
Speaking of Tories, good to see their excellent whipping operation in the Lords last night, very impressive to see so many oldies out so late.
Oh, and did I really hear that Elon Musk is sending a private trip around the moon, next year? Thank God we have people like him around.
But a rule change like this can easily have unintended consequences.
At 15%... There can only be a maximum of six people on the ballot.
That's a manageable number.
But at 5% you could have 20 people on the ballot!
It probably wouldn't go that far... But even ten or fifteen makes a leadership debate almost impossible and means that the biggest struggle candidates have is just getting noticed...
Something like National Insurance could work better.
The problem with death tax is, disregarding a U-turn, it'll be the middle class (particularly at the lower end) that ends up paying. Those higher up will have advisers and accountants to help escape it.
There's also the NHS sacred cow. Free at the point of use, funded by taxation. But if you get Alzheimer's, then the cost of caring for that medical condition then becomes something individuals are expected to pay for. That will stick in the craw, again, of those who have some money but are not well-off. The rich will avoid what they can and can afford the rest. Those whose parents own their home and have a little savings will end up with far less.
A cross-party agreement is needed. This is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution.
I also foresee not a few regulatory issues.
It'll be 2019 at the earliest.
Still, exciting times. Now, where did I leave that spare hundred million?
Mr. Jessop, startling lack of ambition. The MD StarGun is already primed to deliver individuals into the heart of the sun.
2020 Betrayal arguments will be strong
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
BETRAYAL BETRAYAL and thrice BETRAYAL!!
Regarding Cyclefree's header, I think she is way too optimistic, if JC takes Labour to a historic defeat it wont be his fault, in the same way as getting a shellacking in Copeland wasnt his fault, there will be a long list of scapegoats drawn up and flaunted. They might not convinced the voters, but they will convince enough of the selectorate to keep him, or one of his coterie in place, because as we known all it needs is one more heave comrades.
Proteinopathy holds great promise in Alzheimer's. I don't think that many people younger than 50 or so will have much to fear.
As she says, the country needs an opposition and Labour is best-placed to give it. Allowing the Tories three years' free run is not good for the country. Fortunately, Theresa May is not particularly ideological and not given to recklessness, which limits the risks somewhat - though some of her ministers are less on the pragmatist side.
But if Labour does go down that route, it may never recover. That would be the scale of the gamble. Does Labour really have a sufficient firewall to protect a base on which it could rebuild? Not in Scotland, once a solid heartland. There, Labour may be finished for good. if not, it will probably take at least 20 years to recover. The literal shock of repeated landslide defeats have shorn the party of two of its purposes: local machine politics and the anti-Tory vote. Without them, it is searching for a purpose and has yet to find one.
Labour in England and Wales is not in such a bad state but it is holed below the waterline and is sinking. That breach can be repaired but only if action is taken in time and only if the weather remains not too stormy.
As things stand, Labour has already polled 24 four times. Given the trend in polling and Labour's continuing uselessness, at some point it will poll 23, and commentators will note that it's the lowest ever recorded in opposition. And then it will poll 22. But while the red warning lights should be flashing and the klaxons sounding, they're not, because the party has collectively removed the batteries. Instead, the attitude will be "only one point worse than last month", while muttering about margin of error, worse under Brown and so on. It is denial writ large, despite all the electoral and polling evidence.
What is Labour's true core vote? To answer this, we need to first remember that not long ago (i.e. before 2010), people might have put the Lib Dems' core vote at about 14% and Scottish Labour's at about 35%: both at least double the true figure. Labour in the 2009 Euro elections polled 16%, which gives an indication of what its positive support was eight years ago, with a leader who was a credible PM (if not a very good one), which at least tried to engage with public concerns and which understood what the political game was about.
My guess is that Labour's true core vote today is little more than 10%.
If Corbyn is left in place, the accuracy of that guess might well be tested.
Thank you @Cyclefree, a good header.
And let’s hope that there are enough decent people left with the courage and determination necessary to build a left of centre party fit for the 21st century.
That bit makes me weep. Really. I'm not ashamed to be mourning the passing of a political party that had such high objectives & ideals.
Good morning, everyone.
It's hard to understand why the voters do not flock to such parties that hold them in such high esteem.
Con 42
LD 21
UKIP 15
Lab 10
SNP 5
Grn 5
Oth 2
is not inconceivable.
As a lawyer, I also note with sadness but not surprise the shrivelled-hearted response of a group that exactly overlaps with the more... intense... Leavers to a case that called out as a matter of basic decency for sympathy and a completely misguided "rules are rules" attitude.
Although if the Falcon Heavy Demo mission can launch an unmanned Dragon cis-lunar...
Their 2016 behaviour and ongoing non cooperation with Jezza IS why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020.
David Duke has endorsed Nigel Farage
Can anyone tell me why a why a white supremacist and former KKK Grand Wizard is endorsing Nigel Farage?
https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/836051827581841409
The last one was meant to be a dead heat, after all.
Con 449, Lab 77, Lib Dem 35, UKIP 10, Green 1, SNP 54.
Con majority of 248
Just to save some benighted numpty the trouble.
Duke thinking Nige could ever be PM is perhaps the most shocking thing about that tweet. I thought DD was a disgusting racist, but not a moron.
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/836513160576253952
Last year, the Mercedes wasn't even in the top six on the first day.
I realise journalists have to write stuff and keep a livefeed ticking over, (it's legitimate to point out that the Ferrari time was on the medium tyre, the Mercedes time on the soft) but the variability of fuel levels and engine modes makes a direct comparison, without that information, just about worthless.
Personally I would have thought that it's best to avoid being rude about bits of the electorate even if you can't offer them what they want.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/ukip-open-civil-war-nigel-farage-calls-douglas-carswell-thrown/
Farage could accept a peerage and remain an MEP provided that he didn't take up his seat in the Lords.
Mr Blair had a wonderful chance, with everything going for it then. This is a horrible chance, with very little going for it now. But it could still be a chance. Making opportunity out of adversity, or something.
We could've put ourselves on a much sounder long-term footing. Suppose in 1997 National Insurance on the elderly had been imposed, and that money placed in some sort of fund to finance projects to benefit the elderly (and, if it brought in more than it cost, the extra could've been lent at interest).
A surplus could've been established to put the finances in better shape.
But with Blair, everything was tactical. He had no interest in the nation's interest, his goal was to win the game. And he did. Screwed up a lot of things for the country, but there we are.
Con 440
Lab 110
LD 30
SNP 50
Others 20
then the Tories can split off a 111-strong Osbornite party to act as the Opposition.