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.
As a lawyer you appear to have a casual disregard for upholding the law when it gets in the way of your liberal handwringing. Suffice it to say I have had plenty of experience of the vagaries of making applications through UK Immigration, and their decisions have from time to time causes considerable expense and heartache to myself and others close to me.
You cant choose your admirers I guess. If anyone could be bothered to look I am sure there are all sorts of unsavory people that could be dredged up as supporters and possibly even members of the Conservative Party.
(...)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.
It is wrong to see Corbyn/not-Corbyn or even Labour as the only moving part here. Corbyn is a problem, but he started and continues as a symptom as well. Corbyn got in because the not-Corbyn option was practically non-existent. His opponents were the last remnants of an exhausted and intellectually bankrupt party. That's why, to even his own surprise, he was able to beat them. And he still has no credible life force in the Labour Party to oppose him. That's why he won the leadership challenge. It is also why getting rid of Corbyn isn't really an option at the moment.
If Labour did sink to 10% the gap would not be filled by existing party alignments. More likely, the Tories would feel able to split into the different brands of Conservatism which are presently held together in a coalition within the party.
We are living through a worldwide meltdown and refashioning of democratic politics - obviously including Brexit and Trump. In UK terms, we are back in the 1920s, when the old left fell apart and reformed around Socialism, and the old right modernised and reformed around the Middle Class.
What will our political rebirth produce? I suspect it will be the dissolution of the old alliance between Labour and the working class on the one hand, and Conservatives and the middle class on the other hand. It will be the end of left and right. We will instead see a party of the metropolitan prosperous educated liberal (in which Osbornes and Camerons rub shoulders with Blairs and Harmans and Bercows) and a party of the provincial lower classes (for whom May is the natural leader). Left and right will mean nothing. It will be internationalists against little Englanders; professionals against Just About Managers; free traders against protectionists; welfare statists against low taxers; corporatists against small businesses; social liberals against social conservatives.
Douglas Carswell has suggested that Ukip is a "basket case" after Nigel Farage called for him to be thrown out of the party.
The only UK Independence Party MP retweeted a post which claimed Mr Farage had launched an "extraordinary diatribe" against him.
He reposted a comment from Michael Fabricant, a Tory MP, which said: "Reading this extraordinary diatribe by Farage against Douglas Carswell illustrates why UKIP was/is a basket case."
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.
Could a similar criticism not be laid at the door of another PM with access to North Sea oil and funds from privatisations?
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.
As a lawyer you appear to have a casual disregard for upholding the law when it gets in the way of your liberal handwringing. Suffice it to say I have had plenty of experience of the vagaries of making applications through UK Immigration, and their decisions have from time to time causes considerable expense and heartache to myself and others close to me.
Try again. I'm all in favour of upholding the law. The law includes discretion here. I'm in favour of exercising that discretion in appropriate cases.
This is not complicated stuff but it seems to defeat the loony Leavers.
Mr. Dean, more difficult for me to comment on, as I don't remember much of Thatcher's time.
I'm sure she could've done some things better, but the UK advanced markedly in economics as well as shifting away from the deranged leftiness of earlier decades, and the decline in union power (cf Scargill) was a damned good thing.
Also, Thatcher didn't recently make a speech attacking the Government for seeking to implement the result of a referendum
Quote: So let Corbyn stay. Let him lead Labour to a crushing defeat. Let the Left he represents fold up its tents and disappear into the night. 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. :unquote
Yes, British politics does tend to be polarised, black-and-white, either-or.
Instead, why not join the LibDems as red liberals?
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?
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.
A result like
Con 42 LD 21 UKIP 15 Lab 10 SNP 5 Grn 5 Oth 2
is not inconceivable.
Yes it is
Why?
Because the bookies would price your inconceivable 10% at a price greater than Paul Nuttjob lifting the FA Cup.
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.
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.
You're ignoring all the evidence that says it's not. That's not to say that it's likely - UKIP's problems are one reason why it shouldn't happen, though another Farage return might turn things around there - but the probability curve has meaningful figures for Labour at 10 and a little below. There's a saying about the wish being father of the thought which might be apposite.
Douglas Carswell has been an MP in Clacton/Harwich for 12 years. Channel 5 make regular documentaries on how unbelievably shit life is for its residents.
I canvassed for him in Jaywick, where the roads aren't fit to drive on and people live in portacabins, and emailed him the feedback I got from residents at the end of their tether in 2014, no response other than an automated email receipt.
He probably thinks they're crying out for digital democracy or some Gladstonian nonsense in his new book.
What will our political rebirth produce? I suspect it will be the dissolution of the old alliance between Labour and the working class on the one hand, and Conservatives and the middle class on the other hand. It will be the end of left and right. We will instead see a party of the metropolitan prosperous educated liberal (in which Osbornes and Camerons rub shoulders with Blairs and Harmans and Bercows) and a party of the provincial lower classes (for whom May is the natural leader). Left and right will mean nothing.
It will be internationalists against little Englanders; professionals against Just About Managers; free traders against protectionists; welfare statists against low taxers; corporatists against small businesses; social liberals against social conservatives.
A fine post, but of course the divides you highlight at the end are not exclusive sets.
Whither the Internationalist, professional, free trade, low tax, small business social conservatives?
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?
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.
A result like
Con 42 LD 21 UKIP 15 Lab 10 SNP 5 Grn 5 Oth 2
is not inconceivable.
Yes it is
Why?
Because the bookies would price your inconceivable 10% at a price greater than Paul Nuttjob lifting the FA Cup.
Well maybe not but 1000/1 maybe??
Why is it conceivable?
I would get literally as much as I could on that 1000/1. I'd be a backer at 100/1. 33/1 feels about right.
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.
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.
You're ignoring all the evidence that says it's not. That's not to say that it's likely - UKIP's problems are one reason why it shouldn't happen, though another Farage return might turn things around there - but the probability curve has meaningful figures for Labour at 10 and a little below. There's a saying about the wish being father of the thought which might be apposite.
Just cos its pancake day.
I vote the man who predicts Lab 2020 at 10% AS THE BIGGEST TOSSER.
Mr. Dean, more difficult for me to comment on, as I don't remember much of Thatcher's time.
I'm sure she could've done some things better, but the UK advanced markedly in economics as well as shifting away from the deranged leftiness of earlier decades, and the decline in union power (cf Scargill) was a damned good thing.
Also, Thatcher didn't recently make a speech attacking the Government for seeking to implement the result of a referendum
Indeed. Blaming a government for not thinking beyond the next election seems to be like blaming a cat for licking its private parts though. Every govt of every stripe's main goal is re election. Something Thatcher and Blair both understood and implemented.
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.
As a lawyer you appear to have a casual disregard for upholding the law when it gets in the way of your liberal handwringing. Suffice it to say I have had plenty of experience of the vagaries of making applications through UK Immigration, and their decisions have from time to time causes considerable expense and heartache to myself and others close to me.
Try again. I'm all in favour of upholding the law. The law includes discretion here. I'm in favour of exercising that discretion in appropriate cases.
This is not complicated stuff but it seems to defeat the loony Leavers.
Quite a lot of immigration law in practise has no discretion what so ever unless you are prepared to appeal all the way. If you bring your foreign spouse to the UK (assuming you yourself are a UK citizen) and at either of the two checkpoints on the path to citizenship you fall below the required earning/saving limit, your spouse is on the next plane home.
This isn't unique to the UK. A Kiwi friend of mine, retired, in his 60s, married a foreign lady and bought her back to NZ. He satisfied the minimum income requirement by virtue of his minimal pension, and a number of benefits he was receiving. He carelessly took a 3 month vacation before his wife received her citizenship, which led to one of his benefits being withdrawn, thereby putting him below the earnings threshold, his wife's visa was subsequently cancelled and she was put on the next plane home.
What we do in the UK and some other EU states regarding immigration is ridiculously generous compared to just about any of the other 170+ countries of the world, so suggesting that we are in some way lacking in basic decency is deluded.
(...)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.
We are living through a worldwide meltdown and refashioning of democratic politics - obviously including Brexit and Trump. In UK terms, we are back in the 1920s, when the old left fell apart and reformed around Socialism, and the old right modernised and reformed around the Middle Class.
What will our political rebirth produce? I suspect it will be the dissolution of the old alliance between Labour and the working class on the one hand, and Conservatives and the middle class on the other hand. It will be the end of left and right. We will instead see a party of the metropolitan prosperous educated liberal (in which Osbornes and Camerons rub shoulders with Blairs and Harmans and Bercows) and a party of the provincial lower classes (for whom May is the natural leader). Left and right will mean nothing. It will be internationalists against little Englanders; professionals against Just About Managers; free traders against protectionists; welfare statists against low taxers; corporatists against small businesses; social liberals against social conservatives.
So if I understand your point correctly, to summarise, it will be the establishment rich against the aspirational poor
Douglas Carswell has been an MP in Clacton/Harwich for 12 years. Channel 5 make regular documentaries on how unbelievably shit life is for its residents.
I canvassed for him in Jaywick, where the roads aren't fit to drive on and people live in portacabins, and emailed him the feedback I got from residents at the end of their tether in 2014, no response other than an automated email receipt.
He probably thinks they're crying out for digital democracy or some Gladstonian nonsense in his new book.
I should say "some" of it's residents. Those who live in the art deco homes in Frinton, and are members of the Con club etc, all know who he is, and life is very nice there in a Midsomer Murders kind of way
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?
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.
A result like
Con 42 LD 21 UKIP 15 Lab 10 SNP 5 Grn 5 Oth 2
is not inconceivable.
Yes it is
Why?
Because the bookies would price your inconceivable 10% at a price greater than Paul Nuttjob lifting the FA Cup.
Well maybe not but 1000/1 maybe??
Why is it conceivable?
I'll have a quid at that, if you're offering.
(Nuttjob has already lifted the FA Cup, when he won it with Barcelona).
Douglas Carswell has been an MP in Clacton/Harwich for 12 years. Channel 5 make regular documentaries on how unbelievably shit life is for its residents.
I canvassed for him in Jaywick, where the roads aren't fit to drive on and people live in portacabins, and emailed him the feedback I got from residents at the end of their tether in 2014, no response other than an automated email receipt.
He probably thinks they're crying out for digital democracy or some Gladstonian nonsense in his new book.
I tried going for a drive round Jaywick some years ago, couldn't even work out if we were on a road or had ended up off it ...
Douglas Carswell has been an MP in Clacton/Harwich for 12 years. Channel 5 make regular documentaries on how unbelievably shit life is for its residents.
I canvassed for him in Jaywick, where the roads aren't fit to drive on and people live in portacabins, and emailed him the feedback I got from residents at the end of their tether in 2014, no response other than an automated email receipt.
He probably thinks they're crying out for digital democracy or some Gladstonian nonsense in his new book.
You're probably the most high profile UKIP supporter/poster on here. I know you're not so active in the party now. Where would you like to see UKIP go from here? Who would be a decent leader, and what would you like to see Carswell do? This isn't meant as a piss take or an insult, I'd just like to get a feel of what you'd like to happen next. If anything.
Obviously, all politicians want to win elections and that cycle does alter their behaviour to a large extent. But the long-term national interest of the country should also be something that weighs heavily. Cack-handed constitutional tinkering, frittering away half the rebate on a whisper of a promise, splurging spending so we had a deficit in a boom, these are actions of foolishness, not mere electoral ambition.
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.
Well there is a good recent example.
In 2015 there was an 8% Lib Dem -> Tory swing.
Swings in Somerton & Frome 18.3 Yeovil was 16.1%; Twickenham 11.8
However Southport and Carshalton & Wallington swung less - they both should have been Conservative gains on a UNS.
The Lib Dem -> Lab swing was 8.35% (Remember Ed Miliband had a swing towards him with the Tories...)
Brent Central yielded 28.3%, Sheffield Central 22.5, Sheffield Hallam 16.55% and Cambridge 8.0%.
Tim Farron managed just a 2.75% swing against in Westmorland.
As for Scotland there was a 20.7% swing SNP/Lib Dem. Carmichael in Orkney and Shetland suffered a 23.9% swing whereas Jo Swinson made it 16.1, and the overlooked star of the election Mike Crockhart got 14.3%.
Both Jo and Mike increased their raw vote total from 2015, a remarkable achievement in the circumstances.
Obviously that is just a starter - but you need to think very carefully about who might have a 'personal vote', and who doesn't. And as with Mike Crockhart or Jo Swinson it might not be enough :}
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.
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.
You're ignoring all the evidence that says it's not. That's not to say that it's likely - UKIP's problems are one reason why it shouldn't happen, though another Farage return might turn things around there - but the probability curve has meaningful figures for Labour at 10 and a little below. There's a saying about the wish being father of the thought which might be apposite.
Just cos its pancake day.
I vote the man who predicts Lab 2020 at 10% AS THE BIGGEST TOSSER.
Don't mean it David
I didn't predict it; I said it was possible. Big difference.
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.
Yes. I'd also be amazed if we didn't see a Twitter endorsement from Donald Trump on the day this new political entity blazes into existence. (An appalling dereliction of protocol, of course, but who's bothered nowadays?)
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.
Yes. I'd also be amazed if we didn't see a Twitter endorsement from Donald Trump on the day this new political entity blazes into existence. (An appalling dereliction of protocol, of course, but who's bothered nowadays?)
As a patriotic Englishman, the last thing we need is Banks and his ilk anywhere near a party with England in it's name.
Gorton by election Ladbrokes odds. Labour nailed at at 1-12, who would bet on that. Surprised somewhat at the rest, Lib Dems second favourite at 7-1, with Greens on 50-1 equal with the Cons. Thought Greens have a reasonable chance of second, 10 or 20-1 might be fairer
Douglas Carswell has been an MP in Clacton/Harwich for 12 years. Channel 5 make regular documentaries on how unbelievably shit life is for its residents.
I canvassed for him in Jaywick, where the roads aren't fit to drive on and people live in portacabins, and emailed him the feedback I got from residents at the end of their tether in 2014, no response other than an automated email receipt.
He probably thinks they're crying out for digital democracy or some Gladstonian nonsense in his new book.
You're probably the most high profile UKIP supporter/poster on here. I know you're not so active in the party now. Where would you like to see UKIP go from here? Who would be a decent leader, and what would you like to see Carswell do? This isn't meant as a piss take or an insult, I'd just like to get a feel of what you'd like to happen next. If anything.
They look fucked to me!
I have always been consistent in my view, and mocked on here for it, that without Farage it would all go to shit. He was the only reason UKIP got above 10% of the vote ,and helped to force a referendum. Would Carswell have ratted to a party on 5% in the polls? I doubt it
If Leave had lost the referendum and Farage stayed on as leader, I think they would have got 20%+ of the vote at the next GE, and quite a few seats. But the prize has been won now, and it's difficult to see much point in voting for them I guess other than NOTA. I think Nuttall is alright actually, about the best of the rest. I'd like to see Carswell leave the party, he is no more than a high profile paper candidate really.
I don't think I agree with the thread header that letting Corbyn destroy himself first is the way to go for the Labour Party - although I accept that is likely what will happen. The Labour Party needs a majority of its members and decision makers to decide that it should go in a different, more competitive, direction without Corbyn. Corbynistas will never accept that other direction, but they can be marginalised. Essentially a chunk of Labour members that are in the mainstream and neither on the left or right of the Party, who previously voted for Corbyn , need to change their minds.
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.
Yes. I'd also be amazed if we didn't see a Twitter endorsement from Donald Trump on the day this new political entity blazes into existence. (An appalling dereliction of protocol, of course, but who's bothered nowadays?)
As a patriotic Englishman, the last thing we need is Banks and his ilk anywhere near a party with England in it's name.
They did focus groups. Apparently the Evil Racist Bigot Party got much worse numbers as a name.
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".
I am not a Tory. My father voted Labour. So have I, in the past. I am closer to the Lib Dems now. But I have never joined a political party though I was once a member of the TGWU, when the job I was doing required membership.
It is precisely because I do want a party that thinks intelligently about how society should care for those who cannot look after themselves that I despair at what Labour has become. It may well be that it will be the Lib Dems who will become that party.
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 .
I did not choose the photo.
I wanted to be provocative, not least because everyone has been assuming that Corbyn ought to go. So I wanted to test the opposite proposition.
It appears that I have succeeded!
Of course, the serious bit of me agrees with Mr Meeks that the country needs a decent opposition. But the mischievous side threw this out there.
Obviously, all politicians want to win elections and that cycle does alter their behaviour to a large extent. But the long-term national interest of the country should also be something that weighs heavily. Cack-handed constitutional tinkering, frittering away half the rebate on a whisper of a promise, splurging spending so we had a deficit in a boom, these are actions of foolishness, not mere electoral ambition.
All legitimate criticisms no doubt. However your point is that long term national interest should weigh heavily. Maybe I am just a cynic but I don't think it does. As you say Blair could have ameliorated some of the problems of an aging society but didn't. Equally we could have kept some of the money from oil and privatisation in strategic reserve. I don't think this is a party political point, but a feature of our winner takes all system.
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 .
I did not choose the photo.
I wanted to be provocative, not least because everyone has been assuming that Corbyn ought to go. So I wanted to test the opposite proposition.
It appears that I have succeeded!
Of course, the serious bit of me agrees with Mr Meeks that the country needs a decent opposition. But the mischievous side threw this out there.
Heaven forbid that thread writers should be provocative or mischievous.
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).
Yes, plus greater use of annuities and raising NI on the middle aged
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
Ok, Roger - what's the Labour party for?
Who does it seek to represent and what does it want to do for them?
I could ask the same question of the Tory Party. The Labour Party doesn't need to have an overarching vision. In broad terms it favours the group to the individual. It believes in spending more on public services and financing it with a bigger contribution from those who can afford it. Who one can rely on to show compassion for those groups unable to help themselves and with an aim to redistribute wealth over a period of time.
Now give me the raison d'etre for the Tory Party?
Oh that is painfully obvious frommhistory. To govern reasonably competently and sort out the economic mess Labour Governments leave behind..
That was also part of the raison d'etre of the Labour Governments elected in 1964 and 1974. Both inherited an economic mess from the outgoing Tory Governments.
Off topic. I've seen the footage of the Oscars mix-up farce, and assumed it was an out of shape Matt Damon running around in the background. I've just watched a report on Sky News and realised that it was actually the guy from PwC who was responsible for the mess up. It shows how out of touch with Showbiz I am!
Have had a read through the thread, I notice one dimension that is missing in all this.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
Well they waste their money. Letting McCluskey select a leader is like the Christians in Rome choose between eaten by tigers or lions. His personal preferences - a left wing "socialist" candidate - appear to trump electability when it comes to choice. Anyone betting against McCluskey's choice of Leader in the last decade would have got rich.
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
@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.
Thank you.
I knew when I was writing it that I would be accused of naivety and over-optimism. I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE. Plus it may give his opponents the courage to stand up for a decent Labour.
I may be naive but what I want more than anything is for Corbyn's poisonous ideas to be so utterly defeated that there is no chance of them reviving in Labour. They're a virus. Only when they go can a healthy Labour revive.
Labour now is like those pilots in the 447 flight from Brazil: about to crash, not really understanding why but incapable of doing anything about it.
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
Someone survived trying to put the boot in to OGH and RCS a couple of nights ago, I think SeanT is on very safe ground compared to that
I may be naive but what I want more than anything is for Corbyn's poisonous ideas to be so utterly defeated that there is no chance of them reviving in Labour.
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
Ok, Roger - what's the Labour party for?
Who does it seek to represent and what does it want to do for them?
I could ask the same question of the Tory Party. The Labour Party doesn't need to have an overarching vision. In broad terms it favours the group to the individual. It believes in spending more on public services and financing it with a bigger contribution from those who can afford it. Who one can rely on to show compassion for those groups unable to help themselves and with an aim to redistribute wealth over a period of time.
Now give me the raison d'etre for the Tory Party?
Oh that is painfully obvious frommhistory. To govern reasonably competently and sort out the economic mess Labour Governments leave behind..
That was also part of the raison d'etre of the Labour Governments elected in 1964 and 1974. Both inherited an economic mess from the outgoing Tory Governments.
I'd dispute that either was elected to sort that mess out as such.
Labour was elected in 1964 (just) primarily because the Tories looked tired and worn out in office and Labour looked newer and more effective. The economy played a role in that but it was supporting cast rather than lead.
Labour won in 1974 (even more 'only just') by default, because it wasn't the party of the Three Day Week.
In both cases, if Labour was elected to sort out the economy, they failed miserably within three years, delivering devaluation in the first case and IMF intervention in the second.
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
I will PM you if you like. It's not much!
Excuse my ignorance but I don't know what you mean - I assume you can send me a private message but not sure how!
Have had a read through the thread, I notice one dimension that is missing in all this.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
Well they waste their money. Letting McCluskey select a leader is like the Christians in Rome choose between eaten by tigers or lions. His personal preferences - a left wing "socialist" candidate - appear to trump electability when it comes to choice. Anyone betting against McCluskey's choice of Leader in the last decade would have got rich.
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
I have always felt that the Unions should focus on their members and be out of politics completely. I have always viewed the Union Payments as something akin to "Cash for Questions".
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
Sean is the Red Baron of pb. He shoots bullets at you but does so so stylishly that you don't mind.
I may be naive but what I want more than anything is for Corbyn's poisonous ideas to be so utterly defeated that there is no chance of them reviving in Labour. They're a virus. Only when they go can a healthy Labour revive.
One can foresee Corbyn still grinding on even after a disastrous GE in 2020. There will be a long and illustrious list of reasons why its not Jezza's fault, and the usual list of suspects (Right wing media, Blair, Mandelson, Uncle Tom Cobley) will be paraded in front of the party faithful rather like relics at a mass. If he is of the view that it just needs one more push by the comrades, with a proper socialist manifesto this time, and the mass membership support him in that view, I assume he stays in place.
I usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
The Court Jester gets a lot of latitude. 'Twas ever thus....
Have had a read through the thread, I notice one dimension that is missing in all this.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
Well they waste their money. Letting McCluskey select a leader is like the Christians in Rome choose between eaten by tigers or lions. His personal preferences - a left wing "socialist" candidate - appear to trump electability when it comes to choice. Anyone betting against McCluskey's choice of Leader in the last decade would have got rich.
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
I have always felt that the Unions should focus on their members and be out of politics completely. I have always viewed the Union Payments as something akin to "Cash for Questions".
Unions focus on their members precisely by being in politics.
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
Sean is the Red Baron of pb. He shoots bullets at you but does so so stylishly that you don't mind.
Not sure we share the same definition of "stylish" to be honest. Most sound like late-night alcohol-fuelled pub rants to me.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I may be naive but what I want more than anything is for Corbyn's poisonous ideas to be so utterly defeated that there is no chance of them reviving in Labour. They're a virus. Only when they go can a healthy Labour revive.
One can foresee Corbyn still grinding on even after a disastrous GE in 2020. There will be a long and illustrious list of reasons why its not Jezza's fault, and the usual list of suspects (Right wing media, Blair, Mandelson, Uncle Tom Cobley) will be paraded in front of the party faithful rather like relics at a mass. If he is of the view that it just needs one more push by the comrades, with a proper socialist manifesto this time, and the mass membership support him in that view, I assume he stays in place.
Don't forget lack of cars as one of the blame factors. Labour voters can't drive to the polling booth as they don't have a car according to Shami.
I suspect we will have reached peak Corbyn-cult when the actual voters are blamed for having false consciousness and there therefore needs to be a different electorate.
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
Sean is the Red Baron of pb. He shoots bullets at you but does so so stylishly that you don't mind.
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.
John you are nice bloke but you are completely and utterly delusional when it comes to Corbyn. The man is an arrogant, selfish, loser. This would be true whether or not we "Non Socialist Liberal Elites" attacked him. There is probably a place for someone of the left at the helm of the party – Nandy would make a great candidate. But Corbyn? I have no idea what he has put in the beer of Labour members to foster this perfect storm of collective fantasy. LSD perhaps? Angel dust?
Meanwhile, the ever-eloquent @Cyclefree is wrong. As someone aptly put it last night, if you are a passenger in a car which is being driven at 80mph towards a brick wall, you don't just sit there and wait for the crash. You dive over and grab the wheel.
Time for the PLP to grab the wheel and split in the Commons if Corbyn won't stand down.
UNS may no longer be a useful benchmark. It worked well when the proportions were mainly split between two parties. When a third party comes in to play it takes the shares from a one dimensional line or swingometer to a two dimensional equilateral triangle (a simplex) and the UNS now has two components – i.e. two swings are needed, e.g. Lab <–> Con and Lab <–> LD (because Con <–> LD is implied by the other two). But now there are four parties in many constituencies, plus the non-voters whose share may now vary more than before. More exciting, no? And more opportunities for bettors!
As someone who both dishes it out and has it dished to me in turn, I think life is too short to worry too much about what other strangers on the internet choose to write about you. I generally keep my irony filter turned on as a default setting. If I'm crediting some of the written assaults on me with too much charity, I'd rather do that than the other way around.
having spent a bit more time discussing recent events on a Labour Facebook group I'm of the opinion that many of our newer members are wazzocks
Wazzocks is an extremely fine word.
But of doubtful origin. Usually applied to a 'stupid person' but probably more earthy. In this part of the world you still sometimes hear about people having a wazz - which means urinating, often in public.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I think the hard left knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not up to the job. The rest of the Labour party is truly lucky or the party would be lost to it forever. John McDonnell, for example, wouldn't have demonstrated the sheer lack of competence that Jeremy Corbyn has.
As a result, the rest of the Labour party should now be able to regain control of the party at some point in the near future.
Sadly, I doubt very much we will see a Corbyn GE campaign unless May goes to the polls this year.
How do you expect him to be removed? I suggested a method yesterday but it would require proper organisation by the PLP to effect. I might offer a threader to @MikeSmithson and @TSE on the topic...
I suspect we will have reached peak Corbyn-cult when the actual voters are blamed for having false consciousness and there therefore needs to be a different electorate.
As someone who both dishes it out and has it dished to me in turn, I think life is too short to worry too much about what other strangers on the internet choose to write about you. I generally keep my irony filter turned on as a default setting. If I'm crediting some of the written assaults on me with too much charity, I'd rather do that than the other way around.
I never have any problem with SeanT who dishes it out pretty much equally and only tongue-in-cheek. He is spiky but never sinister.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
That may well be the case. Ironically, it will allow the Tories once again to portray Labour as a puppet of the unions, though I'm not sure how much force that will still have.
Sadly, I doubt very much we will see a Corbyn GE campaign unless May goes to the polls this year.
How do you expect him to be removed? I suggested a method yesterday but it would require proper organisation by the PLP to effect. I might offer a threader to @MikeSmithson and @TSE on the topic...
I expect the unions to engineer a removal/retirement of some description. There may well be a deal to allow another left candidate. Who knows. But unions are not this stupid - they can't allow Corbyn to wreck the chances of a Labour government in 2025.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I think the hard left knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not up to the job. The rest of the Labour party is truly lucky or the party would be lost to it forever. John McDonnell, for example, wouldn't have demonstrated the sheer lack of competence that Jeremy Corbyn has.
As a result, the rest of the Labour party should now be able to regain control of the party at some point in the near future.
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
I suspect we will have reached peak Corbyn-cult when the actual voters are blamed for having false consciousness and there therefore needs to be a different electorate.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I think the hard left knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not up to the job. The rest of the Labour party is truly lucky or the party would be lost to it forever. John McDonnell, for example, wouldn't have demonstrated the sheer lack of competence that Jeremy Corbyn has.
As a result, the rest of the Labour party should now be able to regain control of the party at some point in the near future.
Probably John McD knows Corbyn isn't fit for purpose. Is that why he mentioned coups?
Sadly, I doubt very much we will see a Corbyn GE campaign unless May goes to the polls this year.
How do you expect him to be removed? I suggested a method yesterday but it would require proper organisation by the PLP to effect. I might offer a threader to @MikeSmithson and @TSE on the topic...
I expect the unions to engineer a removal/retirement of some description. There may well be a deal to allow another left candidate. Who knows. But unions are not this stupid - they can't allow Corbyn to wreck the chances of a Labour government in 2025.
The would surely accept Nandy. She's a leftwinger. The fact that she is now seen as dangerously moderate by the Corbynistas is testament to just how insanely extreme the current leadership is.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I think the hard left knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not up to the job. The rest of the Labour party is truly lucky or the party would be lost to it forever. John McDonnell, for example, wouldn't have demonstrated the sheer lack of competence that Jeremy Corbyn has.
As a result, the rest of the Labour party should now be able to regain control of the party at some point in the near future.
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
The same method that the big bad wolf used to get two of the three little pigs. The house is made of sticks and one more huff and puff should blow it down.
having spent a bit more time discussing recent events on a Labour Facebook group I'm of the opinion that many of our newer members are wazzocks
Wazzocks is an extremely fine word.
But of doubtful origin. Usually applied to a 'stupid person' but probably more earthy. In this part of the world you still sometimes hear about people having a wazz - which means urinating, often in public.
It's a word my step-father from the Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire border used. He would never have used "twat", but I think wazzock was generally used to convey the same idea. One notch up from pillock for sure.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I think the hard left knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not up to the job. The rest of the Labour party is truly lucky or the party would be lost to it forever. John McDonnell, for example, wouldn't have demonstrated the sheer lack of competence that Jeremy Corbyn has.
As a result, the rest of the Labour party should now be able to regain control of the party at some point in the near future.
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
The same method that the big bad wolf used to get two of the three little pigs. The house is made of sticks and one more huff and puff should blow it down.
A second mass PLP rebellion? It could work but would have to be accompanied by a genuine threat to split in the Commons which the rebels would have to be fully prepared to carry out.
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 usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
Getting abused by SeanT is almost a rite of passage on this site. I got my first broadside from him years ago when I took mild exception to an idea he had put forward. He responded with a blistering attack accusing me of being the sort of chap whose political views were so far to the left that the communist party wouldn't have me even if I wasn't too thick to fill in the application form. He has mellowed a lot over the years.
I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE.
I think just about everyone except the Hard Left knows that Corbyn is not up to the job. As I posted earlier, I think that the main omission in your view is the Union angle. Can Corbyn stay if the Unions turn on him? I think not and it may be another way to depose him.
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I think the hard left knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not up to the job. The rest of the Labour party is truly lucky or the party would be lost to it forever. John McDonnell, for example, wouldn't have demonstrated the sheer lack of competence that Jeremy Corbyn has.
As a result, the rest of the Labour party should now be able to regain control of the party at some point in the near future.
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
Sadly, I doubt very much we will see a Corbyn GE campaign unless May goes to the polls this year.
How do you expect him to be removed? I suggested a method yesterday but it would require proper organisation by the PLP to effect. I might offer a threader to @MikeSmithson and @TSE on the topic...
I expect the unions to engineer a removal/retirement of some description. There may well be a deal to allow another left candidate. Who knows. But unions are not this stupid - they can't allow Corbyn to wreck the chances of a Labour government in 2025.
Isn't the basic disconnect here that Uncle Len wants a proper red in tooth and claw socialist in charge of the Labour Party, and the public won't to elect a party led by one of those. Even if he is persuaded to ditch Jezza for McIRA or hopefully someone with less baggage, the basic problem is a hard left platform won't get elected in the UK. Tony got elected because he didn't scare the horses, or more precisely he didn't make a lot of middle class floating voters worry about their homes and savings, anyone from the hard left is going to do that. For Labour to win, or even form a minority government it needs to attract Labour floaters that didn't mind lending their vote to Cameron.
Don't know the full "in's and out's" with this channel but since all the "Fake News" hullabaloo Google seem to be VERY aggressively deleting channels from their YouTube platform and websites from their search engine as well as throwing a lot of websites out of their AdSense programe.
Have had a read through the thread, I notice one dimension that is missing in all this.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
Well they waste their money. Letting McCluskey select a leader is like the Christians in Rome choose between eaten by tigers or lions. His personal preferences - a left wing "socialist" candidate - appear to trump electability when it comes to choice. Anyone betting against McCluskey's choice of Leader in the last decade would have got rich.
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
I have always felt that the Unions should focus on their members and be out of politics completely. I have always viewed the Union Payments as something akin to "Cash for Questions".
Unions focus on their members precisely by being in politics.
ISTM that they focus on their leaderships and activists not the members, who are just money pumps and cannon fodder.
For at least 2 Elections now (2010 and 2015) Unite have had polling showing that their members have voted for other parties more than for Labour. It is about time their leadership spent their time addressing all politicians rather than trying to treat Labour as house-servants.
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.
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
You can't just leave that hanging there, either repost it or give us a link.
If it involves a young Vietnamese woman in a LOL T-shirt it may not work as smoothly as you think, he's going to be on the lookout for that one.
Bojabob said: Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
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
Ok, Roger - what's the Labour party for?
Who does it seek to represent and what does it want to do for them?
I could ask the same question of the Tory Party. The Labour Party doesn't need to have an overarching vision. In broad terms it favours the group to the individual. It believes in spending more on public services and financing it with a bigger contribution from those who can afford it. Who one can rely on to show compassion for those groups unable to help themselves and with an aim to redistribute wealth over a period of time.
Now give me the raison d'etre for the Tory Party?
Oh that is painfully obvious frommhistory. To govern reasonably competently and sort out the economic mess Labour Governments leave behind..
That was also part of the raison d'etre of the Labour Governments elected in 1964 and 1974. Both inherited an economic mess from the outgoing Tory Governments.
I'd dispute that either was elected to sort that mess out as such.
Labour was elected in 1964 (just) primarily because the Tories looked tired and worn out in office and Labour looked newer and more effective. The economy played a role in that but it was supporting cast rather than lead.
Labour won in 1974 (even more 'only just') by default, because it wasn't the party of the Three Day Week.
In both cases, if Labour was elected to sort out the economy, they failed miserably within three years, delivering devaluation in the first case and IMF intervention in the second.
In 1964 Labour inherited a record Balance of Payments deficit from the Tories. Whilst it made the policy error of resisting devaluation for too long and should have done so in July 1966 rather than waiting til November 1967, it did bequeath to the Heath Tory Government both a healthy Balance of Payments surplus - and a Budget surplus. No Tory Government since World War 2 has managed to do either. The 1974 Government faced inflation of 12/13% which was already accelerating out of control. When Callaghan left office in 1979 , inflation was at least no longer in double figures. As for the recourse to the IMF, as Healey later pointed out, that was based on budgetary projections subsequently found to be false and too pessimistic. Had the true data been available at the time, there would have been no need for any IMF involvement.
Have had a read through the thread, I notice one dimension that is missing in all this.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
Well they waste their money. Letting McCluskey select a leader is like the Christians in Rome choose between eaten by tigers or lions. His personal preferences - a left wing "socialist" candidate - appear to trump electability when it comes to choice. Anyone betting against McCluskey's choice of Leader in the last decade would have got rich.
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
I have always felt that the Unions should focus on their members and be out of politics completely. I have always viewed the Union Payments as something akin to "Cash for Questions".
Unions focus on their members precisely by being in politics.
ISTM that they focus on their leaderships and activists not the members, who are just money pumps and cannon fodder.
For at least 2 Elections now (2010 and 2015) Unite have had polling showing that their members have voted for other parties more than for Labour.
I don't disagree with that. I was just pointing out that Unions believe that being political is in the interests of the members, but I'm not saying that they necessarily back the correct party!
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.
As is frequently the case, it's much worse in the USA than it is here. My impression is that large numbers of Republicans and Democrats view their political opponents as subhuman. They organise boycotts of companies that are owned by, or employ, people whose views they dislike.
Comments
Plenty of empty space in the UKIP parliamentary office?
If Labour did sink to 10% the gap would not be filled by existing party alignments. More likely, the Tories would feel able to split into the different brands of Conservatism which are presently held together in a coalition within the party.
We are living through a worldwide meltdown and refashioning of democratic politics - obviously including Brexit and Trump. In UK terms, we are back in the 1920s, when the old left fell apart and reformed around Socialism, and the old right modernised and reformed around the Middle Class.
What will our political rebirth produce? I suspect it will be the dissolution of the old alliance between Labour and the working class on the one hand, and Conservatives and the middle class on the other hand. It will be the end of left and right. We will instead see a party of the metropolitan prosperous educated liberal (in which Osbornes and Camerons rub shoulders with Blairs and Harmans and Bercows) and a party of the provincial lower classes (for whom May is the natural leader). Left and right will mean nothing. It will be internationalists against little Englanders; professionals against Just About Managers; free traders against protectionists; welfare statists against low taxers; corporatists against small businesses; social liberals against social conservatives.
Douglas Carswell has suggested that Ukip is a "basket case" after Nigel Farage called for him to be thrown out of the party.
The only UK Independence Party MP retweeted a post which claimed Mr Farage had launched an "extraordinary diatribe" against him.
He reposted a comment from Michael Fabricant, a Tory MP, which said: "Reading this extraordinary diatribe by Farage against Douglas Carswell illustrates why UKIP was/is a basket case."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/28/douglas-carswell-suggests-ukip-basket-case-nigel-farage-calls/
This is not complicated stuff but it seems to defeat the loony Leavers.
I'm sure she could've done some things better, but the UK advanced markedly in economics as well as shifting away from the deranged leftiness of earlier decades, and the decline in union power (cf Scargill) was a damned good thing.
Also, Thatcher didn't recently make a speech attacking the Government for seeking to implement the result of a referendum
Yes, British politics does tend to be polarised, black-and-white, either-or.
Instead, why not join the LibDems as red liberals?
Oh, I forget. LDs are neither fish nor fowl.
Well maybe not but 1000/1 maybe??
Why is it conceivable?
I canvassed for him in Jaywick, where the roads aren't fit to drive on and people live in portacabins, and emailed him the feedback I got from residents at the end of their tether in 2014, no response other than an automated email receipt.
He probably thinks they're crying out for digital democracy or some Gladstonian nonsense in his new book.
Whither the Internationalist, professional, free trade, low tax, small business social conservatives?
Macron down to 2.2, Le Pen out a little to 3, Fillon likewise to 4.
(Related Disclosure: I am on sub-20% at 12/1)
He should exit UKIP asap.
I vote the man who predicts Lab 2020 at 10% AS THE BIGGEST TOSSER.
Dont mean it David
This isn't unique to the UK. A Kiwi friend of mine, retired, in his 60s, married a foreign lady and bought her back to NZ. He satisfied the minimum income requirement by virtue of his minimal pension, and a number of benefits he was receiving. He carelessly took a 3 month vacation before his wife received her citizenship, which led to one of his benefits being withdrawn, thereby putting him below the earnings threshold, his wife's visa was subsequently cancelled and she was put on the next plane home.
What we do in the UK and some other EU states regarding immigration is ridiculously generous compared to just about any of the other 170+ countries of the world, so suggesting that we are in some way lacking in basic decency is deluded.
(Nuttjob has already lifted the FA Cup, when he won it with Barcelona).
Obviously, all politicians want to win elections and that cycle does alter their behaviour to a large extent. But the long-term national interest of the country should also be something that weighs heavily. Cack-handed constitutional tinkering, frittering away half the rebate on a whisper of a promise, splurging spending so we had a deficit in a boom, these are actions of foolishness, not mere electoral ambition.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
In 2015 there was an 8% Lib Dem -> Tory swing.
Swings in Somerton & Frome 18.3 Yeovil was 16.1%; Twickenham 11.8
However Southport and Carshalton & Wallington swung less - they both should have been Conservative gains on a UNS.
The Lib Dem -> Lab swing was 8.35% (Remember Ed Miliband had a swing towards him with the Tories...)
Brent Central yielded 28.3%, Sheffield Central 22.5, Sheffield Hallam 16.55% and Cambridge 8.0%.
Tim Farron managed just a 2.75% swing against in Westmorland.
As for Scotland there was a 20.7% swing SNP/Lib Dem. Carmichael in Orkney and Shetland suffered a 23.9% swing whereas Jo Swinson made it 16.1, and the overlooked star of the election Mike Crockhart got 14.3%.
Both Jo and Mike increased their raw vote total from 2015, a remarkable achievement in the circumstances.
Obviously that is just a starter - but you need to think very carefully about who might have a 'personal vote', and who doesn't. And as with Mike Crockhart or Jo Swinson it might not be enough :}
I have always been consistent in my view, and mocked on here for it, that without Farage it would all go to shit. He was the only reason UKIP got above 10% of the vote ,and helped to force a referendum. Would Carswell have ratted to a party on 5% in the polls? I doubt it
If Leave had lost the referendum and Farage stayed on as leader, I think they would have got 20%+ of the vote at the next GE, and quite a few seats. But the prize has been won now, and it's difficult to see much point in voting for them I guess other than NOTA. I think Nuttall is alright actually, about the best of the rest. I'd like to see Carswell leave the party, he is no more than a high profile paper candidate really.
It is precisely because I do want a party that thinks intelligently about how society should care for those who cannot look after themselves that I despair at what Labour has become. It may well be that it will be the Lib Dems who will become that party.
I did not choose the photo.
I wanted to be provocative, not least because everyone has been assuming that Corbyn ought to go. So I wanted to test the opposite proposition.
It appears that I have succeeded!
Of course, the serious bit of me agrees with Mr Meeks that the country needs a decent opposition. But the mischievous side threw this out there.
I've seen the footage of the Oscars mix-up farce, and assumed it was an out of shape Matt Damon running around in the background. I've just watched a report on Sky News and realised that it was actually the guy from PwC who was responsible for the mess up. It shows how out of touch with Showbiz I am!
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
I knew when I was writing it that I would be accused of naivety and over-optimism. I think Labour made a huge mistake choosing Corbyn. Having done that they have made more mistakes trying to get rid of him. So maybe they're stuck with him until the mistake finally works itself out at a GE. Plus it may give his opponents the courage to stand up for a decent Labour.
I may be naive but what I want more than anything is for Corbyn's poisonous ideas to be so utterly defeated that there is no chance of them reviving in Labour. They're a virus. Only when they go can a healthy Labour revive.
Labour now is like those pilots in the 447 flight from Brazil: about to crash, not really understanding why but incapable of doing anything about it.
Labour was elected in 1964 (just) primarily because the Tories looked tired and worn out in office and Labour looked newer and more effective. The economy played a role in that but it was supporting cast rather than lead.
Labour won in 1974 (even more 'only just') by default, because it wasn't the party of the Three Day Week.
In both cases, if Labour was elected to sort out the economy, they failed miserably within three years, delivering devaluation in the first case and IMF intervention in the second.
https://order-order.com/2017/02/28/corbyn-spent-two-hours-on-by-election-day-addressing-small-crowd-in-islington/
At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I suspect we will have reached peak Corbyn-cult when the actual voters are blamed for having false consciousness and there therefore needs to be a different electorate.
Meanwhile, the ever-eloquent @Cyclefree is wrong. As someone aptly put it last night, if you are a passenger in a car which is being driven at 80mph towards a brick wall, you don't just sit there and wait for the crash. You dive over and grab the wheel.
Time for the PLP to grab the wheel and split in the Commons if Corbyn won't stand down.
But now there are four parties in many constituencies, plus the non-voters whose share may now vary more than before.
More exciting, no? And more opportunities for bettors!
As a result, the rest of the Labour party should now be able to regain control of the party at some point in the near future.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/01/13/its-not-a-new-politics-we-need-its-a-new-electorate/
https://twitter.com/liarpoliticians/status/836480800573034496
https://twitter.com/liarpoliticians/status/836482118792409088
I never have any problem with SeanT who dishes it out pretty much equally and only tongue-in-cheek. He is spiky but never sinister.
If it involves a young Vietnamese woman in a LOL T-shirt it may not work as smoothly as you think, he's going to be on the lookout for that one.
For at least 2 Elections now (2010 and 2015) Unite have had polling showing that their members have voted for other parties more than for Labour. It is about time their leadership spent their time addressing all politicians rather than trying to treat Labour as house-servants.
Here is an article from Mark Pack which shows an internal Unite political report acknowledging the fact.
http://www.markpack.org.uk/44050/the-majority-of-unite-members-dont-support-labour/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39114851
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
The 1974 Government faced inflation of 12/13% which was already accelerating out of control. When Callaghan left office in 1979 , inflation was at least no longer in double figures. As for the recourse to the IMF, as Healey later pointed out, that was based on budgetary projections subsequently found to be false and too pessimistic. Had the true data been available at the time, there would have been no need for any IMF involvement.