Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!
Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.
As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
I think that's a very fair critique, Alastair. The big question it poses is whether Nandy can ride out her voting for A50. She might be able to put that bit right to some degree with the selectorate by being more awkward in coming EU-related votes.
What Hatwal is clear – and I assume right – about is the ever-decreasing support for Corbyn. He does appear to be heading toast-ward on those numbers.
Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!
Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.
As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.
It's notable that the people who switched to Brexit on the basis that Dave's Deal didn't meet their expectations for reforming the EU are so silent about the pressing need for much deeper constitutional reform of the UK if we want to have any hope of preserving the union. Instead they seem to have brought into the '100% of sovereignty must lie in Westminster' argument wholesale.
Because - at least on here - it end up in a sterile debate with the Nats.
But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.
Well thought through plan = wall round Yorkshire?
Last time I looked, Yorkshire was north of the Humber.
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
Its a bit of a bizarre article because it is all about who would be acceptable to Labour members, and who would be acceptable to current Labour voters, and not a word is spoken about being acceptable to the sort of voters they need to win in marginals to have any attempt at forming a government. I can't see how selecting the ideal candidate to be optimally acceptable to intercity Labour helps them with their current problem, they are going to get those seats anyway.
But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.
Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!
Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.
As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.
It's notable that the people who switched to Brexit on the basis that Dave's Deal didn't meet their expectations for reforming the EU are so silent about the pressing need for much deeper constitutional reform of the UK if we want to have any hope of preserving the union. Instead they seem to have brought into the '100% of sovereignty must lie in Westminster' argument wholesale.
Because - at least on here - it end up in a sterile debate with the Nats.
But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.
Well thought through plan = wall round Yorkshire?
Last time I looked, Yorkshire was north of the Humber.
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
My thoughts too - I still like Nandy best. Though Stephen Bush let slip earlier that "the influential Tribune WhatsApp group of MPs is largely unified around Keir Starmer at the next leadership election, and they think they are well-placed to win it."
Mr. Glenn, was Northern Ireland carved up? Wales? Scotland?
I wouldn't define England to be part of Wales. If there were a desire for some sort of Anglo-Welsh Parliament, with certain things devolved further to England/Wales, I'd be open to that idea. Can't see it being popular, though.
Strange that he thinks that respecting the democratic wishes of the electorate over Brexit is a negative thing in a leadership candidate. Those MPs who campaigned for Remain, then voted to trigger A50 should be applauded.
Meanwhile those who stuck 2 fingers up to the electorate are regarded as best placed for the leadership...
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
My thoughts too - I still like Nandy best. Though Stephen Bush let slip earlier that "the influential Tribune WhatsApp group of MPs is largely unified around Keir Starmer at the next leadership election, and they think they are well-placed to win it."
Sir Keir looks like the Yvette Cooper candidate next time: all the attributes that make him the obvious winner except two - any form of charisma and any particular message to convey.
Strange that he thinks that respecting the democratic wishes of the electorate over Brexit is a negative thing in a leadership candidate. Those MPs who campaigned for Remain, then voted to trigger A50 should be applauded.
Meanwhile those who stuck 2 fingers up to the electorate are regarded as best placed for the leadership...
It is a negative thing in the eyes of the members. Clear-headedness about the electorate is exactly one of the things I include in "thinking just like a political punter should".
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
My thoughts too - I still like Nandy best. Though Stephen Bush let slip earlier that "the influential Tribune WhatsApp group of MPs is largely unified around Keir Starmer at the next leadership election, and they think they are well-placed to win it."
Sir Keir looks like the Yvette Cooper candidate next time: all the attributes that make him the obvious winner except two - any form of charisma and any particular message to convey.
The perfect figurehead for the Tribune group, then, looking at most of them.
At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.
"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.
He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
I think Atul Hatwal's article is indeed excellent, but it seems to me he needs to add at least one more column to his traffic-light table, namely how close ideologically the MP in question is to the selectorate, leaving aside the Brexit issue. In other words, I'd have thought that Keir Starmer, to take one example, would get a red mark against him even if Brexit wasn't an issue, whereas John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey would get a green mark in that column.
I think Atul Hatwal's article is indeed excellent, but it seems to me he needs to add at least one more column to his traffic-light table, namely how close ideologically the MP in question is to the selectorate, leaving aside the Brexit issue. In other words, I'd have thought that Keir Starmer, to take one example, would get a red mark against him even if Brexit wasn't an issue, whereas John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey would get a green mark in that column.
Yes, that sounds fair. Nandy and Alexander would be amber on that scale, I guess.
And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.
Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.
Indyref 2?
Or some pressure group that can act as an outrider for that. I'd be looking for campaign groups called things like "Scotland for Scotland".
Strange that he thinks that respecting the democratic wishes of the electorate over Brexit is a negative thing in a leadership candidate. Those MPs who campaigned for Remain, then voted to trigger A50 should be applauded.
Meanwhile those who stuck 2 fingers up to the electorate are regarded as best placed for the leadership...
It is a negative thing in the eyes of the members. Clear-headedness about the electorate is exactly one of the things I include in "thinking just like a political punter should".
I suppose that's my disadvantage being a Labour Leaver - it isn't something that would count as an issue for me in the next leadership election. We're leaving.
I think Atul Hatwal's article is indeed excellent, but it seems to me he needs to add at least one more column to his traffic-light table, namely how close ideologically the MP in question is to the selectorate, leaving aside the Brexit issue. In other words, I'd have thought that Keir Starmer, to take one example, would get a red mark against him even if Brexit wasn't an issue, whereas John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey would get a green mark in that column.
That's a fair point, Richard. Perhaps you should write to him and suggest this?
I think Atul Hatwal's article is indeed excellent, but it seems to me he needs to add at least one more column to his traffic-light table, namely how close ideologically the MP in question is to the selectorate, leaving aside the Brexit issue. In other words, I'd have thought that Keir Starmer, to take one example, would get a red mark against him even if Brexit wasn't an issue, whereas John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey would get a green mark in that column.
Yes, that sounds fair. Nandy and Alexander would be amber on that scale, I guess.
Indeed. I would have Stella as red or at least ambery-red on that column, did it exist.
That’s not the same Mr Rahman who was in London, is it?
There was a court case covered by Manchester Evening News. Haven't found the outcome, but given that he is still sitting, it may have ended well for him.
From this week's Popbitch: >> Peer pressure << Shami's getting leathered
Shami Chakrabarti has been getting such a pasting for her recent amateurish TV appearances, it makes you wonder why she bothers putting herself through it all – but she really owes Jeremy Corbyn. Few people know quite how much.
Shami really, really wanted that peerage. As far as we can tell, she put herself up for selection as a People's Peer at least three times but never got the call. She made overtures to the Lib Dems to be nominated too, but there was nothing doing there.
Clearly they missed out, as Corbyn's decision to make her a lady has obviously earned him her eternal gratitude.
I think Atul Hatwal's article is indeed excellent, but it seems to me he needs to add at least one more column to his traffic-light table, namely how close ideologically the MP in question is to the selectorate, leaving aside the Brexit issue. In other words, I'd have thought that Keir Starmer, to take one example, would get a red mark against him even if Brexit wasn't an issue, whereas John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey would get a green mark in that column.
Yes, that sounds fair. Nandy and Alexander would be amber on that scale, I guess.
Indeed. I would have Stella as red or at least ambery-red on that column, did it exist.
"Judge Robert Atherton instead bound over all five defendants to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £500 each. The power is a measure used by courts when they believe there is a risk an individual may breach the peace in future."
Perhaps the legal eagles might know if this is usual for such cases.
I think Atul Hatwal's article is indeed excellent, but it seems to me he needs to add at least one more column to his traffic-light table, namely how close ideologically the MP in question is to the selectorate, leaving aside the Brexit issue. In other words, I'd have thought that Keir Starmer, to take one example, would get a red mark against him even if Brexit wasn't an issue, whereas John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey would get a green mark in that column.
Yes, that sounds fair. Nandy and Alexander would be amber on that scale, I guess.
Amber is maybe the place to be - get a coalition of the Corbynites and the anti-Corbynites to take you over the line?
The Lib Dem figure was helped a lot by a single donation:
A £1m donation meant the Lib Dems reported more funds raised than Labour in the last quarter of 2016. Gregory Nasmyth's gift pushed Lib Dem donations to £1,972,904, compared with £1,970,055 for the Labour Party. It is the first time since donations records began in 2001 that Lib Dem quarterly donations have beaten Labour.
Sorry, but that Labour Uncut article is completely off the mark when it says "supporting Brexit" would be a black mark against any leadership candidates.
In case we've forgotten, Corbyn originally won the leadership in 2015 when he was saying he might well back a Leave vote.
Then he was easily re-elected last year when he said Labour should accept Brexit, against a candidate who made a LibDem-esque "let's have a second referendum" the centre of his pitch.
Most Labour members voted to Remain, but they really don't feel that strongly about it, and would rather the party considers other issues (especially economic ones) as red lines rather than Brexit, in my experience.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
I think Atul Hatwal's article is indeed excellent, but it seems to me he needs to add at least one more column to his traffic-light table, namely how close ideologically the MP in question is to the selectorate, leaving aside the Brexit issue. In other words, I'd have thought that Keir Starmer, to take one example, would get a red mark against him even if Brexit wasn't an issue, whereas John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey would get a green mark in that column.
Yes, that sounds fair. Nandy and Alexander would be amber on that scale, I guess.
Amber is maybe the place to be - get a coalition of the Corbynites and the anti-Corbynites to take you over the line?
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
There are eight current Labour MPs who have been Health Secretary or shadow Health Secretary. I wonder how many could name the current shadow Health Secretary without looking.
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
My thoughts too - I still like Nandy best. Though Stephen Bush let slip earlier that "the influential Tribune WhatsApp group of MPs is largely unified around Keir Starmer at the next leadership election, and they think they are well-placed to win it."
Sir Keir looks like the Yvette Cooper candidate next time: all the attributes that make him the obvious winner except two - any form of charisma and any particular message to convey.
Keir will win hands down. We need someone with gravitas. He has that in spades.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she at least showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time.
That sounds wise. If Labour goes through the pain of manhandling Corbyn out the exit, then invests in a shiny new leader only to find they have been painfully over-promoted, it really will start to look like the end for Labour.
But Yvette? What if Ed Balls were back in Parliament - would you take him over his wife?
Germans, her aide told her, “think like Lego bricks.”
“You make decision A, B and C,” the aide explained.
“The Brits are very happy to suddenly go back and throw it all up in the air.
But the Germans would say, ‘no, no, we’ve made decision A, we’ve made decision B, so decision C can only be this, because we can’t revisit what we’ve done before.’”
Gells with my experience....'No, no, you can't do that because we've agreed X - what if we change X? Looks of horror....
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
There are eight current Labour MPs who have been Health Secretary or shadow Health Secretary. I wonder how many could name the current shadow Health Secretary without looking.
I have failed at that test and I am a political anorak.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
There are eight current Labour MPs who have been Health Secretary or shadow Health Secretary. I wonder how many could name the current shadow Health Secretary without looking.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
Yvette is a serious candidate. While it is true that she is far from the most colourful of politicians, as the PM is entirely devoid of charisma she would look positively gregarious across the despatch box.
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
My thoughts too - I still like Nandy best. Though Stephen Bush let slip earlier that "the influential Tribune WhatsApp group of MPs is largely unified around Keir Starmer at the next leadership election, and they think they are well-placed to win it."
Sir Keir looks like the Yvette Cooper candidate next time: all the attributes that make him the obvious winner except two - any form of charisma and any particular message to convey.
Keir will win hands down. We need someone with gravitas. He has that in spades.
I know plenty of my Labour chums invest a lot of hope in Keir. To my mind, he walks a tightrope between gravitas and terminally dull. And falls off.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
There are eight current Labour MPs who have been Health Secretary or shadow Health Secretary. I wonder how many could name the current shadow Health Secretary without looking.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
There are eight current Labour MPs who have been Health Secretary or shadow Health Secretary. I wonder how many could name the current shadow Health Secretary without looking.
He's one of my big greens!
He's one of my above-par results. I usually try to make sure I have the Labour health spokesperson onside. It's a role in which it's relatively easy to sparkle with the right audience.
If Labour are to do well at the next election (and by well I mean not having yet another net loss of seats) they really need Ed Balls to stand in Gorton and then find a way for him to replace Corbyn before 2019. It is not a complete solution to their problems but it is so much a better solution than anything else on the table to barely need thinking about.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
There are eight current Labour MPs who have been Health Secretary or shadow Health Secretary. I wonder how many could name the current shadow Health Secretary without looking.
He's one of my big greens!
He's one of my above-par results. I usually try to make sure I have the Labour health spokesperson onside. It's a role in which it's relatively easy to sparkle with the right audience.
Quite so. And he was famously "loyal" to Corbyn when everyone else resigned. This was of course because he held the NEC position, but such trivial details needn't concern him when making his pitch.
What is it about the last two Labour leaders that they were prepared to put personal ambition before their party? A blind camel could see they were repellent to most voters so why didn't they just do something else?
What is it about the last two Labour leaders that they were prepared to put personal ambition before their party? A blind camel could see they were repellent to most voters so why didn't they just do something else?
Ed Miliband traded significantly odds-on to be Next Prime Minister. It's a good job blind camels don't have Betfair accounts.
If Labour are to do well at the next election (and by well I mean not having yet another net loss of seats) they really need Ed Balls to stand in Gorton and then find a way for him to replace Corbyn before 2019. It is not a complete solution to their problems but it is so much a better solution than anything else on the table to barely need thinking about.
However, seems the selection process has been going on ten years:
O/T This will surely bring in tens of thousands to Tory Party coffers. This afternoon's e-mail/spam from party HQ:
Dear John,
It has now been a week since Trudy Harrison was elected in Copeland: THE FIRST VICTORY OF ITS KIND SINCE 1878 We have created a new, limited edition mug to commemorate the people of Copeland having their first Conservative MP since 1935.
It may become a collector's edition in 2187 though.
But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.
That's the only way it would be viable, I think.
Why do people have this idiotic need to create these artificial entities. If they can't shove disparate separate countries together to form federations they are trying to break up countries, and divide people all in the name of forming federations in reverse. It is lunacy.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
Yvette is a serious candidate. While it is true that she is far from the most colourful of politicians, as the PM is entirely devoid of charisma she would look positively gregarious across the despatch box.
But she and some other Blairites stood opposite Corbyn in the original leadership election post Miliband and she had precisely nothing to say. None of the others did apart from Corbyn. (Sure what he said was to most people abhorrent - but he clearly has a belief and is prepared to articulate it.). Cooper comes across as a shiny quacking robot of a politician.
O/T This will surely bring in tens of thousands to Tory Party coffers. This afternoon's e-mail/spam from party HQ:
Dear John,
It has now been a week since Trudy Harrison was elected in Copeland: THE FIRST VICTORY OF ITS KIND SINCE 1878 We have created a new, limited edition mug to commemorate the people of Copeland having their first Conservative MP since 1935.
It may become a collector's edition in 2187 though.
What is it about the last two Labour leaders that they were prepared to put personal ambition before their party? A blind camel could see they were repellent to most voters so why didn't they just do something else?
In all seriousness, since the early Eighties they've had Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn. Only two of those would not fit the "voter repellent" category (at the time, obviously). That's starting to look like a feature, not a bug.
Sorry, but that Labour Uncut article is completely off the mark when it says "supporting Brexit" would be a black mark against any leadership candidates.
In case we've forgotten, Corbyn originally won the leadership in 2015 when he was saying he might well back a Leave vote.
Then he was easily re-elected last year when he said Labour should accept Brexit, against a candidate who made a LibDem-esque "let's have a second referendum" the centre of his pitch.
Most Labour members voted to Remain, but they really don't feel that strongly about it, and would rather the party considers other issues (especially economic ones) as red lines rather than Brexit, in my experience.
Brexit is the economy. For the next ten years or so.
Germans, her aide told her, “think like Lego bricks.”
“You make decision A, B and C,” the aide explained.
“The Brits are very happy to suddenly go back and throw it all up in the air.
But the Germans would say, ‘no, no, we’ve made decision A, we’ve made decision B, so decision C can only be this, because we can’t revisit what we’ve done before.’”
Gells with my experience....'No, no, you can't do that because we've agreed X - what if we change X? Looks of horror....
That is absolutely true and however hard you try to fathom 'why' you can't.
Their favourite line is 'but It's not logical' ....it makes shooting ads for them extremely difficult because despite being super sophisticated in all sorts of ways they can't understand that to tell the story logic can go out of the window. It causes a terrible inner struggle. One of the worlds mysteries
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
Yvette is a serious candidate. While it is true that she is far from the most colourful of politicians, as the PM is entirely devoid of charisma she would look positively gregarious across the despatch box.
But she and some other Blairites stood opposite Corbyn in the original leadership election post Miliband and she had precisely nothing to say. None of the others did apart from Corbyn. (Sure what he said was to most people abhorrent - but he clearly has a belief and is prepared to articulate it.). Cooper comes across as a shiny quacking robot of a politician.
If we are going to use labels like Blairite, then to be accurate Yvette was/is a Brownite.
Vulgar boasting alert: just got offer for a new book deal which involved the word "million".
To be fair, a fraction thereof, but a hefty fraction.
I LOVE offers that include the word "million"
At the cost of what fraction of your soul?
Zero. I have no soul left. I sold out to Mammon years ago. It's very liberating. I used to worry about prizes and reviews and all that posterity shit. Now I don't give a picayune fucklet.
All that matters is lots of readers and LOTS of lovely moolah.
Just as well, you’d never have been shortlisted for the Booker prize. - #ThatsaCompliment
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
My thoughts too - I still like Nandy best. Though Stephen Bush let slip earlier that "the influential Tribune WhatsApp group of MPs is largely unified around Keir Starmer at the next leadership election, and they think they are well-placed to win it."
Sir Keir looks like the Yvette Cooper candidate next time: all the attributes that make him the obvious winner except two - any form of charisma and any particular message to convey.
Keir will win hands down. We need someone with gravitas. He has that in spades.
What Labour "needs" and what the ragtag army of £3 carpet-baggers and Trot-lovers will actually vote for are rather different.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
Yvette is a serious candidate. While it is true that she is far from the most colourful of politicians, as the PM is entirely devoid of charisma she would look positively gregarious across the despatch box.
But she and some other Blairites stood opposite Corbyn in the original leadership election post Miliband and she had precisely nothing to say. None of the others did apart from Corbyn. (Sure what he said was to most people abhorrent - but he clearly has a belief and is prepared to articulate it.). Cooper comes across as a shiny quacking robot of a politician.
If we are going to use labels like Blairite, then to be accurate Yvette was/is a Brownite.
Sorry. You are quite correct. I was using it in the sense of non-Corbynoie. But at the time Brownite was the right label. How swiftly things change. Brown has gone from unleashing the forces of hell to a historical bad joke in the blink of an eye.
Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).
My thoughts too - I still like Nandy best. Though Stephen Bush let slip earlier that "the influential Tribune WhatsApp group of MPs is largely unified around Keir Starmer at the next leadership election, and they think they are well-placed to win it."
Sir Keir looks like the Yvette Cooper candidate next time: all the attributes that make him the obvious winner except two - any form of charisma and any particular message to convey.
Keir will win hands down. We need someone with gravitas. He has that in spades.
Not what I'd call it.
He sounds - more or less - OK on the radio, but there is something a bit weird about his face (total lack of expression ?). He looks as though someone drew a bad cartoon (a la Scott Adams) and it just about came alive.
For what it's worth, as a Labour member who voted Corbyn last year (though not originally in 2015), my choice would be Yvette Cooper in the next contest.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
Yvette is a serious candidate. While it is true that she is far from the most colourful of politicians, as the PM is entirely devoid of charisma she would look positively gregarious across the despatch box.
But she and some other Blairites stood opposite Corbyn in the original leadership election post Miliband and she had precisely nothing to say. None of the others did apart from Corbyn. (Sure what he said was to most people abhorrent - but he clearly has a belief and is prepared to articulate it.). Cooper comes across as a shiny quacking robot of a politician.
If we are going to use labels like Blairite, then to be accurate Yvette was/is a Brownite.
The could go for a particularly divisive leader next time, surname Marm.
Sorry, but that Labour Uncut article is completely off the mark when it says "supporting Brexit" would be a black mark against any leadership candidates.
In case we've forgotten, Corbyn originally won the leadership in 2015 when he was saying he might well back a Leave vote.
Then he was easily re-elected last year when he said Labour should accept Brexit, against a candidate who made a LibDem-esque "let's have a second referendum" the centre of his pitch.
Most Labour members voted to Remain, but they really don't feel that strongly about it, and would rather the party considers other issues (especially economic ones) as red lines rather than Brexit, in my experience.
Brexit is the economy. For the next ten years or so.
Talking of decades, it is now possible, indeed very probable (barring terror attack, terminal cirrhosis, weird end of western civilisation), that I will do ten years in a row where I earn more than the prime minister in every one of those years. Just from writing.
For a writer that's meant to be impossible apart from the top 0.00000001%. So I must be in that 0.0000001%.
Odd feeling.
I can only bang on in this revolting boastful way because almost none of you know me so it doesn't matter if you hate me. I also realise that I might, nonetheless, be trying your patience just a tad, so I will now shut the F up and go and order some more ludicrously overpriced wine that I don't need.
Sorry, but that Labour Uncut article is completely off the mark when it says "supporting Brexit" would be a black mark against any leadership candidates.
In case we've forgotten, Corbyn originally won the leadership in 2015 when he was saying he might well back a Leave vote.
Then he was easily re-elected last year when he said Labour should accept Brexit, against a candidate who made a LibDem-esque "let's have a second referendum" the centre of his pitch.
Most Labour members voted to Remain, but they really don't feel that strongly about it, and would rather the party considers other issues (especially economic ones) as red lines rather than Brexit, in my experience.
Brexit is the economy. For the next ten years or so.
Talking of decades, it is now possible, indeed very probable (barring terror attack, terminal cirrhosis, weird end of western civilisation), that I will do ten years in a row where I earn more than the prime minister in every one of those years. Just from writing.
For a writer that's meant to be impossible apart from the top 0.00000001%. So I must be in that 0.0000001%.
Odd feeling.
I can only bang on in this revolting boastful way because almost none of you know me so it doesn't matter if you hate me. I also realise that I might, nonetheless, be trying your patience just a tad, so I will now shut the F up and go and order some more ludicrously overpriced wine that I don't need.
Chin Chin.
To be fair, you are slightly more interesting than May. Although the unkind might accuse you of being a purulent pimple of self-satisfaction.
Mr. T, if it makes you feel better, you banging on about your obnoxious level of success does make me feel less bad banging on when my (rather less successful) books come out.
But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.
That's the only way it would be viable, I think.
Why do people have this idiotic need to create these artificial entities. If they can't shove disparate separate countries together to form federations they are trying to break up countries, and divide people all in the name of forming federations in reverse. It is lunacy.
Not really artificial - archaic I'd accept
But basically it is saying London, the Home Counties and the North are different. And then there's the bit in the middle that's not the north or the south. And Norfolk. Norfolk's different.
Sorry, but that Labour Uncut article is completely off the mark when it says "supporting Brexit" would be a black mark against any leadership candidates.
In case we've forgotten, Corbyn originally won the leadership in 2015 when he was saying he might well back a Leave vote.
Then he was easily re-elected last year when he said Labour should accept Brexit, against a candidate who made a LibDem-esque "let's have a second referendum" the centre of his pitch.
Most Labour members voted to Remain, but they really don't feel that strongly about it, and would rather the party considers other issues (especially economic ones) as red lines rather than Brexit, in my experience.
Brexit is the economy. For the next ten years or so.
Talking of decades, it is now possible, indeed very probable (barring terror attack, terminal cirrhosis, weird end of western civilisation), that I will do ten years in a row where I earn more than the prime minister in every one of those years. Just from writing.
For a writer that's meant to be impossible apart from the top 0.00000001%. So I must be in that 0.0000001%.
Odd feeling.
I can only bang on in this revolting boastful way because almost none of you know me so it doesn't matter if you hate me. I also realise that I might, nonetheless, be trying your patience just a tad, so I will now shut the F up and go and order some more ludicrously overpriced wine that I don't need.
Chin Chin.
Heh. Some of us remember when you started posting on PB as a struggling writer, years ago. I think we tend rather to look at you with affection, one of our own made good.
Good luck to you; hope the next decade goes as well as this one.
Sorry, but that Labour Uncut article is completely off the mark when it says "supporting Brexit" would be a black mark against any leadership candidates.
In case we've forgotten, Corbyn originally won the leadership in 2015 when he was saying he might well back a Leave vote.
Then he was easily re-elected last year when he said Labour should accept Brexit, against a candidate who made a LibDem-esque "let's have a second referendum" the centre of his pitch.
Most Labour members voted to Remain, but they really don't feel that strongly about it, and would rather the party considers other issues (especially economic ones) as red lines rather than Brexit, in my experience.
Brexit is the economy. For the next ten years or so.
Talking of decades, it is now possible, indeed very probable (barring terror attack, terminal cirrhosis, weird end of western civilisation), that I will do ten years in a row where I earn more than the prime minister in every one of those years. Just from writing.
For a writer that's meant to be impossible apart from the top 0.00000001%. So I must be in that 0.0000001%.
Odd feeling.
I can only bang on in this revolting boastful way because almost none of you know me so it doesn't matter if you hate me. I also realise that I might, nonetheless, be trying your patience just a tad, so I will now shut the F up and go and order some more ludicrously overpriced wine that I don't need.
Chin Chin.
Good for you. It is a great achievement. I remember seeing Oryx and Crake, a big literary event at the time, jump into the ST top ten list at number one. Having sold 5,000 copies. Not much cash there.
But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.
That's the only way it would be viable, I think.
Why do people have this idiotic need to create these artificial entities. If they can't shove disparate separate countries together to form federations they are trying to break up countries, and divide people all in the name of forming federations in reverse. It is lunacy.
Not really artificial - archaic I'd accept
But basically it is saying London, the Home Counties and the North are different. And then there's the bit in the middle that's not the north or the south. And Norfolk. Norfolk's different.
London is different. The rest is mostly quite similar.
But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.
That's the only way it would be viable, I think.
Why do people have this idiotic need to create these artificial entities. If they can't shove disparate separate countries together to form federations they are trying to break up countries, and divide people all in the name of forming federations in reverse. It is lunacy.
Federalism works. That's why most of the Anglosphere does it.
Comments
What Hatwal is clear – and I assume right – about is the ever-decreasing support for Corbyn. He does appear to be heading toast-ward on those numbers.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/labour-leadership-why-jeremy-corbyn-wont-be-listening-owen-jones
NB members here, notably not including Nandy: http://www.labourtribunemps.org/members
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/the-labour-battle-for-gorton-12677245
I wouldn't define England to be part of Wales. If there were a desire for some sort of Anglo-Welsh Parliament, with certain things devolved further to England/Wales, I'd be open to that idea. Can't see it being popular, though.
Mr C, I see. Do you mean Yorkshire will be ruled by the Prince-Bishop of Durham again?
Meanwhile those who stuck 2 fingers up to the electorate are regarded as best placed for the leadership...
And I agree completely. What an idiot.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/28/the-latest-betting-tips-from-alastair-meeks/
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.id/2014/06/who-do-business-for-scotland-represent.html
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/councillor-punched-and-kicked-man-in-mosque-890911
>> Peer pressure <<
Shami's getting leathered
Shami Chakrabarti has been
getting such a pasting for
her recent amateurish TV
appearances, it makes you
wonder why she bothers putting
herself through it all – but
she really owes Jeremy Corbyn.
Few people know quite how much.
Shami really, really wanted
that peerage. As far as we
can tell, she put herself up
for selection as a People's
Peer at least three times but
never got the call. She made
overtures to the Lib Dems to
be nominated too, but there
was nothing doing there.
Clearly they missed out, as
Corbyn's decision to make her
a lady has obviously earned
him her eternal gratitude.
"http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/councillor-in-the-clear-over-attack-claim-891264
"Judge Robert Atherton instead bound over all five defendants to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £500 each. The power is a measure used by courts when they believe there is a risk an individual may breach the peace in future."
Perhaps the legal eagles might know if this is usual for such cases.
A £1m donation meant the Lib Dems reported more funds raised than Labour in the last quarter of 2016.
Gregory Nasmyth's gift pushed Lib Dem donations to £1,972,904, compared with £1,970,055 for the Labour Party.
It is the first time since donations records began in 2001 that Lib Dem quarterly donations have beaten Labour.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39143976
In case we've forgotten, Corbyn originally won the leadership in 2015 when he was saying he might well back a Leave vote.
Then he was easily re-elected last year when he said Labour should accept Brexit, against a candidate who made a LibDem-esque "let's have a second referendum" the centre of his pitch.
Most Labour members voted to Remain, but they really don't feel that strongly about it, and would rather the party considers other issues (especially economic ones) as red lines rather than Brexit, in my experience.
She's not great, but in terms of political positioning, she's just about tolerable (unlike the ridiculous hardcore Blairite stuff that Kendall/Chuka/Tristram and the like were coming out with in the aftermath of the 2015 election), and although she hardly set the world alight with her media performances as Shadow Home Secretary in the last parliament, she atleast showed she has some basic political and presentational skills.
The newbies like Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner et al are nowhere close to being ready for the big time. And I barely noticed this Heidi Alexander in all the time that she was (allegedly) Labour's health spokesperson.
But Yvette? What if Ed Balls were back in Parliament - would you take him over his wife?
http://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-angela-merkel-splitting-differences-similarities-uk-germany/
Interesting comment on cultural differences:
Germans, her aide told her, “think like Lego bricks.”
“You make decision A, B and C,” the aide explained.
“The Brits are very happy to suddenly go back and throw it all up in the air.
But the Germans would say, ‘no, no, we’ve made decision A, we’ve made decision B, so decision C can only be this, because we can’t revisit what we’ve done before.’”
Gells with my experience....'No, no, you can't do that because we've agreed X - what if we change X? Looks of horror....
On second thoughts, don't bother.....
Does Dugdale have some cunning policy of which I'm blissfully unaware?
However, seems the selection process has been going on ten years:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/the-labour-battle-for-gorton-12677245
Dear John,
It has now been a week since Trudy Harrison was elected in Copeland: THE FIRST VICTORY OF ITS KIND SINCE 1878
We have created a new, limited edition mug to commemorate the people of Copeland having their first Conservative MP since 1935.
It may become a collector's edition in 2187 though.
Their favourite line is 'but It's not logical' ....it makes shooting ads for them extremely difficult because despite being super sophisticated in all sorts of ways they can't understand that to tell the story logic can go out of the window. It causes a terrible inner struggle. One of the worlds mysteries
He sounds - more or less - OK on the radio, but there is something a bit weird about his face (total lack of expression ?).
He looks as though someone drew a bad cartoon (a la Scott Adams) and it just about came alive.
Although the unkind might accuse you of being a purulent pimple of self-satisfaction.
Congrats on your success
But basically it is saying London, the Home Counties and the North are different. And then there's the bit in the middle that's not the north or the south. And Norfolk. Norfolk's different.
I'll probably write a post-test article with early musings.
The same middle initial.
Congratulations @SeanT on your continued literary success.
Good luck to you; hope the next decade goes as well as this one.
Except Norfolk. Norfolk is special.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39140771
Insert gag here...