Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For LAB the onjective is to avert a Tory landslide – but how

SystemSystem Posts: 11,700
edited May 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For LAB the onjective is to avert a Tory landslide – but how

For many years Theresa May’s main claim to fame was her bravery in telling the Tories they’re the Nasty Party.

Read the full story here


«13456789

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989
    First :smiley:
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    second
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Seventh, like Diane Abbott...
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989
    "intelligent voting"? Please!
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,042
    edited May 2017
    My first ever "first" on PB!

    Edit: Oops, third!

    Edit 2: Fifth.

    I have mis-spoken twice!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991

    Europhilia in the European demos storming ahead, especially in France (perhaps because they're staring at the horrid local alternative)::

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/pro-european-feeling-on-the-rise-in-france/

    We'll see if it is a flash in thepan.
    Roger said:

    me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me

    Someone's just found a transcript of Theresa May's next speech....

    Well at least it doesn't say 'happy warrior' I suppose, thank heaven's for small mercies.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    Maybe Labour needs a landslide loss to help get rid of Corbyn.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989
    Sorry, @murali_s :p
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    murali_s said:

    My first ever "first" on PB!

    Edit: Oops, third!

    only you were fourth
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    edited May 2017
    If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter

    Nobody doubts it lives on, Don, where they disagree is whether nastiness is inherent in a party's makeup and unique to only one party. Only partisan fools claim that theirs is the only morally decent party, rather than that of the options they are the most morally decent.

    So it is not about whether nastiness lives on, but whether it is endemic.
  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited May 2017
    Thats an easy question to answer.

    By an armed revolution similar to 1917.

    Only one wee problem, they aren't capable of launching one. Just ain't good enough.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    Mr. S, still far more accurate at guessing than Diane Abbott.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    She pointed out that the reasons for calling a snap general election were untrue

    She asserted that the reasons were untrue. I don't fully buy TMay's explanation either, but do they public care? Currently not.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    kle4 said:

    If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter

    Nobody doubts it lives on, Don, where they disagree is whether nastiness is inherent in a party's makeup and unique to only one party. Only partisan fools claim that theirs is the only morally decent party, rather than that of the options they are the most morally decent.

    So it is not about whether nastiness lives on, but whether it is endemic.

    Where does that quote come from?
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    kle4 said:

    Europhilia in the European demos storming ahead, especially in France (perhaps because they're staring at the horrid local alternative)::

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/pro-european-feeling-on-the-rise-in-france/

    We'll see if it is a flash in thepan.
    Roger said:

    me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me

    Someone's just found a transcript of Theresa May's next speech....

    Well at least it doesn't say 'happy warrior' I suppose, thank heaven's for small mercies.
    What's happened to "strong and stable" ?
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Well Mr Brind , the first idea won't work, Mrs May is far and away more trusted than Mr Corbyn... cant see that working.. as for the ground game you need to have a chat to IOS, late of this parish.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    Fears of a Tory Tyranny – the phrase was coined by Jack Dromey, who defending a 5,129 majority in Birmingham Erdington – have prompted a call for electoral pacts with the Greens.

    Terrible idea, one of the few good things Corbyn has done is to resist it. The Greens are in many ways worse than moderate Tories, they are certainly far more extreme, and that they get to ride a 'progressive' tag is ridiculous. You are quite right to describe how some of them are, and to be wary of them delivering a good outcome for Lab given that. It wouldn't even impact all that many seats.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,800
    (copied from PT - sorry, but I have no excuse other than I thought well of it)
    Roger said:

    me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me

    Someone's just found a transcript of Theresa May's next speech....

    Maybe she's right.

    Given where we are now I sort of think that there is simply no alternative to do other than trust in Mrs May's abilities. There are no better candidates, and we did this to ourselves.

    It's just possible that she's up to the task. We'll see.

    There's a great misconception about how Brexit should be negotiated (I really hope that this isn't shared by the people doing the negotiations) - and that's that we should negotiate down. We need to negotiate upwards from a base of essentially nothing. 'No deal' + .

    The question is how big the '+' is.

  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,042
    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,222
    "Defective moral compass"? From a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell?


    Oh dear, oh dear.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205
    If anyone's thinking "should I bother reading the thread header?" Don't bother.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    'Labour Truth Team' is a name I am not sure about, to be honest. If the truth you are painting is this

    I have no doubt May is vulnerable to a forensic exposure of her duplicity and her defective moral compass

    Then that is not truth, it is spin. 'Defective moral compass', really? Duplicity is an easy potential argument, and she is pretty pedestrian in certain respects, going for that she cannot be trusted make some sense, but 'defective moral compass' is horseshit.

    Particularly because any Lab MP has as leader someone who is much more vulnerable to claims of a defective moral compass (and even then a great many would dispute it, instead seeing him as a fool), and is incompetent, and Lab MPs are, unless they disavow him, saying Corbyn is the alternative to TMay.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    An electoral pact is a gift for the Tories

    "I know my offer to the electorate is too crap to beat all my opponents, so I need some of them to withdraw"

    Awesome
  • Options
    Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 361
    The Labour truth team ?
    From the party of Alistair Campbell ? And Tony Blair ? And Gordon Brown ?
    Nah
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,927
    Y0kel said:

    Thats an easy question to answer.

    By an armed revolution similar to 1917.

    Only one wee problem, they aren't capable of launching one. Just ain't good enough.

    FPT South Belfast, I understand Dr. McDonnell's strong opposition to abortion means he won't get much support from people who will likely support Alliance or Greens, making it a very tight battle with the DUP.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,563
    Intelligent voting?

    The 2015 GE if it had been fought under different voting systems, such as AV.

    image

    I even did a thread on it

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/24/electoral-reform-might-not-be-the-panacea-the-left-think-it-is/
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    When did "X is a liar" last claim a scalp? Profumo was a bit ago, and that was lying to the House. I don't see the claim that she lied, when what she in fact did could equally be presented as changing her mind, affecting a single vote, but good luck with it.

    Talking of effective electoral memes I look forward to Tessa making the indisputable claim that with Brexit on the table, this is no time for a novice.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    They are a worry. But can Labour learn if they don't suffer as a result of repeatedly choosing Corbyn?
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited May 2017
    tlg86 said:

    If anyone's thinking "should I bother reading the thread header?" Don't bother.

    I would like to place on record my grateful thanks to the Editor for starting the piece "Don Brind explo...."

    It carries on from there I think. But others can carry that burden for me.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    surbiton said:

    kle4 said:

    Europhilia in the European demos storming ahead, especially in France (perhaps because they're staring at the horrid local alternative)::

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/pro-european-feeling-on-the-rise-in-france/

    We'll see if it is a flash in thepan.
    Roger said:

    me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me

    Someone's just found a transcript of Theresa May's next speech....

    Well at least it doesn't say 'happy warrior' I suppose, thank heaven's for small mercies.
    What's happened to "strong and stable" ?
    Taking a day off I think - we don't want to wear it out.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    Then that is not truth, it is spin. 'Defective moral compass', really? Duplicity is an easy potential argument, and she is pretty pedestrian in certain respects, going for that she cannot be trusted make some sense, but 'defective moral compass' is horseshit.

    Particularly because any Lab MP has as leader someone who is much more vulnerable to claims of a defective moral compass (and even then a great many would dispute it, instead seeing him as a fool), and is incompetent, and Lab MPs are, unless they disavow him, saying Corbyn is the alternative to TMay.

    Which way was McDonnells "moral compass" pointing that led him to protest under a Communist (or Syrian) flag?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    Comrade Miss Cyclefree, surely you are not suggesting Chairman Corbyn's hammer-and-sickle compass is pointing the wrong way? That's impossible, the arrow is firmly fixed on Moscow!

    [I hope you're recovering well, incidentally].
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Maybe Labour needs a landslide loss to help get rid of Corbyn.

    The most popular working assumption at the moment seems to be that he won't go regardless, at least not until a Far Left successor is guaranteed to make it onto the leadership ballot. Of course, a landslide might actually make that easier: if the proportion of Corbyn's opponents losing their seats is substantially greater than the proportion of his allies, then the Far Left might find themselves holding enough of Labour's surviving seats to get to the 15% threshold.

    On topic, I am not sure that anything that Labour might do to Theresa May or her party is going to be enough to compensate for the enormous vat of filth that Tory HQ (presumably) has ready to tip over Corbyn in the closing stages of this campaign.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,927
    Cyclefree said:

    "Defective moral compass"? From a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell?


    Oh dear, oh dear.

    A defective moral compass is good when it's possessed by members of the Labour Party.
  • Options
    Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 361
    Ground war ?
    We've heard about Labour's awesome ground game before.
    Has anyone heard from IOS ? He went quiet in 2015, quite suddenly
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    I believe Labour should be prepared not to stand about 200 candidates [ obviously from the bottom ]. The actual number will be based on what arrangements can be found.

    There should be no explicit pact with any party but offers could be made or received on a case-by-case basis from Lib Dems, Greens and even the SNP.

    Where Labour has come second or a close third will not come up for discussion. So the local CLP should have no objections except there are enough nutters who will not accept this simple and common sense proposal.

    For example, if we do not put up a candidate in Richmond, Surrey the Liberals will have to step down somewhere else.

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    There may not be a seat to concede to the Greens. I can't see where Greens are competing against the Tories.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    Mr. Rook, a depressing prospect.
  • Options
    ***** Betting Post *****

    Amidst Ladbrokes' otherwise somewhat lacklustre GE market offerings, I believe I've found a tasty bit of value as regards their 9/4 (3.25 decimal odds) against Labour's share of the U.K. vote being between 25% - 30%.

    These odds offer a 20% better return than Betfair Sportsbook's price of 15/8 and 28.5% more than BetFred's 7/4.

    Unsurprisingly. Laddies' sister company Corals offers the same odds which look like value to me, but DYOR.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ah, hubris. Like a reverse George Osborne, shadow home secretary Diane Abbott is attempting to turn a career in pontificating into the exercise of real power.

    Unfortunately, it turns out that lounging squatly on a sofa in a late-night television studio sneering at those brave enough to take tough decisions is poor preparation for doing the job oneself.

    Ms Abbott’s discomfort during an interview with LBC’s Nick Ferrari, as she struggled to remember how much Labour’s plans to increase bobbies on the beat would cost – was it £300,000? £80 million? £64.3 million? – means she is already a shoo-in for the Natalie Bennett Memorial Car Crash Political Interview of the Year Award.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/diane-abbotts-interview-demonstrates-far-left-fit-armchair-critics/
  • Options
    DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    (Blast! The Curse of the New Thread)
    @SouthamObserver
    Sorry to go off topic, but I've been dying to ask this..
    Are you an American/Have American relatives/have spent an extensive time in the Western United States?
    (its the words that you use in your postings) :smile:
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    I would advise people to read the thread, it is a useful pointer to a bit of a dilemma. Don hates TMay and the Tories - truly hates, it is clear from the vituperative language he always employs - and he loves the Labour brand, but he also is totally against Corbyn. The mental conflicts that can cause is something plenty in Labour are going through right now, and the scale of the expected Tory win will come down in a lot of areas to whether the dislike of Corbyn (or belief that the only way to properly be rid of him is for Lab to get a hammering) is trumped by the hatred of the Tories, that bolstering Corbyn by saving MPs who are implicitly saying they think he should be PM, is necessary for the good of the brand, the brand that the country needs. Even so he is still able to recognize the Greens are not as firm allies in the Tory fight as might be thought, so he's not subsuming everything to the Tory hate.
  • Options
    saddosaddo Posts: 534
    The Tories have barely started yet. They don't have to. Every day is pretty much a guaranteed Labour car crash of some kind, usually 2 a day, the EU chip in by being rude about us and reinforcing the need for us to have an obvious tough nut as PM.

    When they do get going, lots of Corbyn & McDonnell past history and words are still in the locker and there's also the killer line she used at the last PMQ's about the 170 MP's who have no confidence in Corbyn and yet are standing on a ticket with him as potential PM.

    Crosby will have to run the worst election campaign in history for May not to have a very large majority and he ain't going to do that.
  • Options
    PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    What is an onjective? :D
  • Options
    Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 361
    Many brilliant hardworking Labour MPs ?
    Nah
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,042
    kle4 said:

    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    They are a worry. But can Labour learn if they don't suffer as a result of repeatedly choosing Corbyn?
    If Corbyn continues as leader, Labour party = dead.

    A new party would have to be set-up but how long will it take them to get to power? Tory one-party rule is the form horse for the medium term.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    edited May 2017
    Mr. Putney, hmm. That's quite tempting. Not enough for me to bite, but certainly worth considering.

    Edited extra bit: checked and there are still no points spread markets for F1. Disappointing.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    But if it's anything other than a reverse of 1997, will it be enough for the sensibles like yourself to kick out Corbyn and his fellow travellers from the party, and retake it with the wish to be a party of government once again?

    The Tories regrouped after '97, it took them a while but when the government faltered a decade later they had got themselves back into a winnable position.

    If the majority ends up being only 50 or 60, isn't it most likely that Corbyn puts the losses down to a lack of party unity, the Evil Blairites and the right-wing press, and carries on with the purge?

    So either you give the Tories a landslide or your party splits in half, which is it to be?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    Francis Pym got handbagged in 83 for pointing out that a large majority makes for bad government, not something Maggie wanted to hear.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    surbiton said:

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    Good. The SNP have enough seats that losing a few more won't worry them, and it'd be nice to see a unionist recovery of some stripe.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    GeoffM said:

    kle4 said:

    If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter

    Nobody doubts it lives on, Don, where they disagree is whether nastiness is inherent in a party's makeup and unique to only one party. Only partisan fools claim that theirs is the only morally decent party, rather than that of the options they are the most morally decent.

    So it is not about whether nastiness lives on, but whether it is endemic.

    Where does that quote come from?
    The header.
  • Options
    BaskervilleBaskerville Posts: 391
    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter..."
    Of course, Labour are never nasty are they, Don?
    Oh, other than to voters they suggest should ally with them tactically!
    "In 2015 I discovered that Green voters are some of the most bigoted and blinkered people (outside the ranks of Momentum)
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Intelligent voting?

    The 2015 GE if it had been fought under different voting systems, such as AV.

    image

    I even did a thread on it

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/24/electoral-reform-might-not-be-the-panacea-the-left-think-it-is/

    How did you work out the AV and STV seats ? Surely, that involves ranking by voters.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,128
    Has this received its due attention yet:

    ' Labour has sacked one of its parliamentary candidates following allegations that he suggested that Europeans should “eradicate Islam from our continent”.

    The Independent understands that Labour's investigation centred around the @wellingblueboy Twitter account, which is alleged to have been that of Trevor Merralls, who was until today the Labour parliamentary candidate for the safe Tory seat of Old Bexley and Sidcup. '

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-trevor-merralls-eradicate-islam-tweets-parliamentary-candidate-investigation-racist-muslims-a7713111.html
  • Options

    Mr. Putney, hmm. That's quite tempting. Not enough for me to bite, but certainly worth considering.

    Wanting jam on it Morris?
  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307

    ***** Betting Post *****

    Amidst Ladbrokes' otherwise somewhat lacklustre GE market offerings, I believe I've found a tasty bit of value as regards their 9/4 (3.25 decimal odds) against Labour's share of the U.K. vote being between 25% - 30%.

    These odds offer a 20% better return than Betfair Sportsbook's price of 15/8 and 28.5% more than BetFred's 7/4.

    Unsurprisingly. Laddies' sister company Corals offers the same odds which look like value to me, but DYOR.

    It is value, I'm after it.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    Then that is not truth, it is spin. 'Defective moral compass', really? Duplicity is an easy potential argument, and she is pretty pedestrian in certain respects, going for that she cannot be trusted make some sense, but 'defective moral compass' is horseshit.

    Particularly because any Lab MP has as leader someone who is much more vulnerable to claims of a defective moral compass (and even then a great many would dispute it, instead seeing him as a fool), and is incompetent, and Lab MPs are, unless they disavow him, saying Corbyn is the alternative to TMay.

    Which way was McDonnells "moral compass" pointing that led him to protest under a Communist (or Syrian) flag?
    Nowhere good, I suspect, but while that he is in a leadership role makes it a matter which should concern the party a great deal, I'm not going to assume the entire parties moral compass matches his.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,894
    edited May 2017
    Well if Labour really are trying to avoid a Tory landslide Channel 4 News doesn't make good watching. In an interview with Emily Thornberry Cathy Newman asked whether a Party planning for government should have a Home Secretary who can add up less well than an 8 year old and a Shadow Chancellor marching under a Syrian flag during a general election campaign.

    Bring back Michael Gove!
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,042
    edited May 2017
    Sandpit said:

    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    But if it's anything other than a reverse of 1997, will it be enough for the sensibles like yourself to kick out Corbyn and his fellow travellers from the party, and retake it with the wish to be a party of government once again?

    The Tories regrouped after '97, it took them a while but when the government faltered a decade later they had got themselves back into a winnable position.

    If the majority ends up being only 50 or 60, isn't it most likely that Corbyn puts the losses down to a lack of party unity, the Evil Blairites and the right-wing press, and carries on with the purge?

    So either you give the Tories a landslide or your party splits in half, which is it to be?
    Even with a Tory landslide, Corbyn will hang on and possibly win a leadership election.

    I really don't know how the centre-left can progress in this country. We have been defeated, not by the enemy but from within.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989
    @SeanT - remember the long term economic plan?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,002
    Mr. Putney, I could see Labour doing either better or worse, depending how things go.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941

    ***** Betting Post *****

    Amidst Ladbrokes' otherwise somewhat lacklustre GE market offerings, I believe I've found a tasty bit of value as regards their 9/4 (3.25 decimal odds) against Labour's share of the U.K. vote being between 25% - 30%.

    These odds offer a 20% better return than Betfair Sportsbook's price of 15/8 and 28.5% more than BetFred's 7/4.

    Unsurprisingly. Laddies' sister company Corals offers the same odds which look like value to me, but DYOR.

    That's a pretty good price, and a reasonable hedge for buying Con seats. Will see how much @Shadsy will let me have. Thanks.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SeanT said:

    Confession: I rather admire the brazen way the Tories are repeating "strong and stable".

    @jimwaterson: Absolutely impressive work from Theresa May to take @alexGspence's question about George Osborne and still finish w… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859470203847135232
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989
    kle4 said:


    surbiton said:

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    Good. The SNP have enough seats that losing a few more won't worry them, and it'd be nice to see a unionist recovery of some stripe.
    Even if this doesn't happen I expect we will see strong tactical voting.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    SeanT said:

    Confession: I rather admire the brazen way the Tories are repeating "strong and stable".

    This reminds me of the Labour campaign in 1997. Relentless, even tedious message discipline. Endless reiteration of the central themes. Rinse and repeat, drain and recycle. Everyone in the loop, echoing the same numbingly predictable soundbites. And facing a panicked, feeble opposition, knowing it is doomed to horrible defeat.

    The result was a landslide then, and it will surely be a landslide now.

    I think its irritating, but I severely doubt it is so irritating it will cost them - there is zero doubt what their message is.

    Have the others come up with slogans yet?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989
    Scott_P said:

    SeanT said:

    Confession: I rather admire the brazen way the Tories are repeating "strong and stable".

    @jimwaterson: Absolutely impressive work from Theresa May to take @alexGspence's question about George Osborne and still finish w… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859470203847135232
    She could have at least said something along the lines of "I see George is offering Strong and Stable Leadership at the Standard".... :D
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    Have the others come up with slogans yet?

    Labour MPs are using "Corbyn can't be PM, please vote for me"
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,042
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    Have the others come up with slogans yet?

    Labour MPs are using "Corbyn can't be PM, please vote for me"
    Do you blame them?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    murali_s said:

    Sandpit said:

    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    But if it's anything other than a reverse of 1997, will it be enough for the sensibles like yourself to kick out Corbyn and his fellow travellers from the party, and retake it with the wish to be a party of government once again?

    The Tories regrouped after '97, it took them a while but when the government faltered a decade later they had got themselves back into a winnable position.

    If the majority ends up being only 50 or 60, isn't it most likely that Corbyn puts the losses down to a lack of party unity, the Evil Blairites and the right-wing press, and carries on with the purge?

    So either you give the Tories a landslide or your party splits in half, which is it to be?
    Even with a Tory landslide, Corbyn will hang on and possibly win a leadership election.

    I really don't know how the centre-left can progress in this country. We have been defeated, not by the enemy but from within.
    Foxinsox was taking some solace the other day from the Isle of Wight MP standing down within hours of reports of making anti-gay comments, showing the social conservatives have lost at least.

    But I really struggle with how the party could reelect Corbyn if there is a landslide. I know its been reported, but seriously, even he would stay on?! Surely the party would have to split at that point?
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    I believe Labour should be prepared not to stand about 200 candidates [ obviously from the bottom ]. The actual number will be based on what arrangements can be found.

    There should be no explicit pact with any party but offers could be made or received on a case-by-case basis from Lib Dems, Greens and even the SNP.

    Where Labour has come second or a close third will not come up for discussion. So the local CLP should have no objections except there are enough nutters who will not accept this simple and common sense proposal.

    For example, if we do not put up a candidate in Richmond, Surrey the Liberals will have to step down somewhere else.

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    There may not be a seat to concede to the Greens. I can't see where Greens are competing against the Tories.

    Literally insane. A pact with the SNP is a pact with a party which is 1. dedicated to the destruction of the UK, a dissolution which will, 2, make any future victory extremely difficult for Labour. The SNP despise you.

    You've lost it. Lie down.

    The SNP is a left of centre party. To deny the Tories, I would do anything. In any case, the SNP holds those seats right now.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,966
    surbiton said:

    I believe Labour should be prepared not to stand about 200 candidates [ obviously from the bottom ]. The actual number will be based on what arrangements can be found.

    There should be no explicit pact with any party but offers could be made or received on a case-by-case basis from Lib Dems, Greens and even the SNP.

    Where Labour has come second or a close third will not come up for discussion. So the local CLP should have no objections except there are enough nutters who will not accept this simple and common sense proposal.

    For example, if we do not put up a candidate in Richmond, Surrey the Liberals will have to step down somewhere else.

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    There may not be a seat to concede to the Greens. I can't see where Greens are competing against the Tories.

    The SNP will do and say anything to achieve Scottish independence. It has absolutely zero interest in forming any kind of meaningful, stable partnership with any party that does not share its aims.

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763
    Scott_P said:

    SeanT said:

    Confession: I rather admire the brazen way the Tories are repeating "strong and stable".

    @jimwaterson: Absolutely impressive work from Theresa May to take @alexGspence's question about George Osborne and still finish w… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859470203847135232
    who's George Osborne ?
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Thank god Labour never took Scotland, Wales or the English working class for granted eh Don oh
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    saddo said:

    The Tories have barely started yet. They don't have to. Every day is pretty much a guaranteed Labour car crash of some kind, usually 2 a day, the EU chip in by being rude about us and reinforcing the need for us to have an obvious tough nut as PM.

    When they do get going, lots of Corbyn & McDonnell past history and words are still in the locker and there's also the killer line she used at the last PMQ's about the 170 MP's who have no confidence in Corbyn and yet are standing on a ticket with him as potential PM.

    Crosby will have to run the worst election campaign in history for May not to have a very large majority and he ain't going to do that.

    [My bold]. Exactly. Anyone vaguely normal on the Lab front bench is vulnerable to that, and to "You resigned from the shad cab; what has changed?" So the only people who can safely be put up for interview are the arch loyalists, of whom the most prominent, and the most used to dealing with TV appearances, is Ms. Abbott. If he keeps wheeling her out as a human shield, he's home and dry.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Had to laugh at the "ground war" comment.

    Ah yes, the much vaunted Labour ground game :-)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    who's George Osborne ?

    The leader of the opposition
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    Have the others come up with slogans yet?

    Labour MPs are using "Corbyn can't be PM, please vote for me"
    I believe it would be a very successful sales pitch. In fact, Labour's improvement in the polls after the first few days can probably be attributed to this.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    edited May 2017
    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    I believe Labour should be prepared not to stand about 200 candidates [ obviously from the bottom ]. The actual number will be based on what arrangements can be found.

    There should be no explicit pact with any party but offers could be made or received on a case-by-case basis from Lib Dems, Greens and even the SNP.

    Where Labour has come second or a close third will not come up for discussion. So the local CLP should have no objections except there are enough nutters who will not accept this simple and common sense proposal.

    For example, if we do not put up a candidate in Richmond, Surrey the Liberals will have to step down somewhere else.

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    There may not be a seat to concede to the Greens. I can't see where Greens are competing against the Tories.

    Literally insane. A pact with the SNP is a pact with a party which is 1. dedicated to the destruction of the UK, a dissolution which will, 2, make any future victory extremely difficult for Labour. The SNP despise you.

    You've lost it. Lie down.

    The SNP is a left of centre party. To deny the Tories, I would do anything. In any case, the SNP holds those seats right now.
    And if someone holds their unionism as more important than their centre-leftism?
    Floater said:

    Thank god Labour never took Scotland, Wales or the English working class for granted eh Don oh

    Ouch!
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,691
    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    The Labour landslide in 1997 was a licence to implement radical socialist policies. And then Blair said "We were elected as New Labour, we will govern as New Labour", and all those dreams were shattered.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    blockquote class="Quote" rel="Scott_P">Seventh, like Diane Abbott...

    No eighth, or was it 5th ... or maybe 16th
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763
    Scott_P said:

    who's George Osborne ?

    The leader of the opposition
    No that's Roger
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited May 2017
    Evening all.

    Mr Brind, if you are relying on Labour’s “ground war” to prevent “a landslide” you're buggered.
  • Options
    davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    'Cooper, Benn and Blunkett Labour truth team' FAIL

    'May slippery morals' FAIL

    'Rising star Clive Lewis' FAIL

    'Many brilliant hardworking Labour mps' FAIL

    All this and more from the man who suggested Corbyn vs Owen Smith would be too close to call

    Desperate and tragic stuff.



  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,800
    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    I believe Labour should be prepared not to stand about 200 candidates [ obviously from the bottom ]. The actual number will be based on what arrangements can be found.

    There should be no explicit pact with any party but offers could be made or received on a case-by-case basis from Lib Dems, Greens and even the SNP.

    Where Labour has come second or a close third will not come up for discussion. So the local CLP should have no objections except there are enough nutters who will not accept this simple and common sense proposal.

    For example, if we do not put up a candidate in Richmond, Surrey the Liberals will have to step down somewhere else.

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    There may not be a seat to concede to the Greens. I can't see where Greens are competing against the Tories.

    Literally insane. A pact with the SNP is a pact with a party which is 1. dedicated to the destruction of the UK, a dissolution which will, 2, make any future victory extremely difficult for Labour. The SNP despise you.

    You've lost it. Lie down.

    The SNP is a left of centre party. To deny the Tories, I would do anything. In any case, the SNP holds those seats right now.
    The SNP is a party with one objective. They don't care about anything else. A sheep's party in democracy's clothing.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,763

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    The Labour landslide in 1997 was a licence to implement radical socialist policies. And then Blair said "We were elected as New Labour, we will govern as New Labour", and all those dreams were shattered.
    yes, but Tony got richer and that's a good thing
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    edited May 2017

    Mr Brind, if you are relying on Labour’s “ground war” to prevent “a landslide” you're buggered.

    But they have all those Corbynista new members to pound the streets. (in fairness in my area a Corbynista influx has either caused or not hindered an impressive organizational improvement)
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    PS Don, never a good look to have to beg for votes from others, not exactly a sign you feeling good about the election.

    You need to take the kicking that is coming Labour's way and you need to learn from it.


    Can Labour learn from it though?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,060
    SeanT said:

    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    Confession: I rather admire the brazen way the Tories are repeating "strong and stable".

    This reminds me of the Labour campaign in 1997. Relentless, even tedious message discipline. Endless reiteration of the central themes. Rinse and repeat, drain and recycle. Everyone in the loop, echoing the same numbingly predictable soundbites. And facing a panicked, feeble opposition, knowing it is doomed to horrible defeat.

    The result was a landslide then, and it will surely be a landslide now.

    I think its irritating, but I severely doubt it is so irritating it will cost them - there is zero doubt what their message is.

    Have the others come up with slogans yet?
    Quite. I have no idea what Labour stands for, or indeed the LDs, or UKIP. Certainly I can't sum it up in three words. I guess the SNP stand for "Another Independence Referendum!" but I'm not sure it's that popular, even in Scotland.

    "Strong and stable" sounds very appealing, it's what we want. Like "milk and biscuits", or "gin and tonic", or "champagne and spanking", or even "poetry and striptease" (a poem by my father).

    The world is scary. Islamism is scary. Climate change is scary. Brexit is scary. Strong and stable??? YES PLEASE. We don't want Hope and Change, We Want Strong and Stable.

    Presumably they focus-grouped it to death, and found that it hit home.

    It works.
    Everyone knows what the LibDems stand for. But it's a message that resonates only in student halls and in the leafiest suburbs and garden towns of South East England.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited May 2017
    surbiton said:

    Intelligent voting?

    The 2015 GE if it had been fought under different voting systems, such as AV.

    image

    I even did a thread on it

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/24/electoral-reform-might-not-be-the-panacea-the-left-think-it-is/

    How did you work out the AV and STV seats ? Surely, that involves ranking by voters.
    It misses the key point that parties would target their campaigns differently - and voters would vote differently (+ turnout wouldn't be the same) - under any of those different voting systems.

    The seat totals can't be extrapolated from the FPTP votes.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,988
    Roger said:

    Well if Labour really are trying to avoid a Tory landslide Channel 4 News doesn't make good watching. In an interview with Emily Thornberry Cathy Newman asked whether a Party planning for government should have a Home Secretary who can add up less well than an 8 year old and a Shadow Chancellor marching under a Syrian flag during a general election campaign.

    Bring back Michael Gove!

    When Thornberry was asked on Newsnight why people should vote for Labour, she said so they could hold the govt to account over Brexit negotiations, forgetting that if they won they WOULD BE the govt!!!

    They are all clowns, absolutely useless
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    kle4 said:

    She pointed out that the reasons for calling a snap general election were untrue

    She asserted that the reasons were untrue. I don't fully buy TMay's explanation either, but do they public care? Currently not.

    But if the message is pushed relentlessly in the campaign, she may become to be seen more widely as a barefaced liar and that can only tarnish her image and appeal.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SeanT said:

    I guess the SNP stand for "Another Independence Referendum!" but I'm not sure it's that popular, even in Scotland.

    The SNP official spokesman has said that if they get lots of votes, that is a vote for independence, if they don't get lots of votes, that is not a vote against independence...
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    edited May 2017
    SeanT said:

    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    Confession: I rather admire the brazen way the Tories are repeating "strong and stable".

    This reminds me of the Labour campaign in 1997. Relentless, even tedious message discipline. Endless reiteration of the central themes. Rinse and repeat, drain and recycle. Everyone in the loop, echoing the same numbingly predictable soundbites. And facing a panicked, feeble opposition, knowing it is doomed to horrible defeat.

    The result was a landslide then, and it will surely be a landslide now.

    I think its irritating, but I severely doubt it is so irritating it will cost them - there is zero doubt what their message is.

    Have the others come up with slogans yet?
    Quite. I have no idea what Labour stands for, or indeed the LDs, or UKIP. Certainly I can't sum it up in three words. I guess the SNP stand for "Another Independence Referendum!" but I'm not sure it's that popular, even in Scotland.

    "Strong and stable" sounds very appealing, it's what we want. Like "milk and biscuits", or "gin and tonic", or "champagne and spanking", or even "poetry and striptease" (a poem by my father).

    The world is scary. Islamism is scary. Climate change is scary. Brexit is scary. Strong and stable??? YES PLEASE. We don't want Hope and Change, We Want Strong and Stable.

    Presumably they focus-grouped it to death, and found that it hit home.

    It works.
    It certainly can. I would guess TMay's brand is not yet powerful enough to get across the 'strong and stable' message without words yet, like Merkel.

    http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-539329-breitwandaufmacher-bsnh-539329.jpg
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,927
    surbiton said:

    I believe Labour should be prepared not to stand about 200 candidates [ obviously from the bottom ]. The actual number will be based on what arrangements can be found.

    There should be no explicit pact with any party but offers could be made or received on a case-by-case basis from Lib Dems, Greens and even the SNP.

    Where Labour has come second or a close third will not come up for discussion. So the local CLP should have no objections except there are enough nutters who will not accept this simple and common sense proposal.

    For example, if we do not put up a candidate in Richmond, Surrey the Liberals will have to step down somewhere else.

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    There may not be a seat to concede to the Greens. I can't see where Greens are competing against the Tories.

    The SNP won't stand down for anyone. Many SLAB voters would choose Conservative over SNP, if Labour stood down.

    Brighton & Hove is probably the only place where a local pact between Labour and Greens would work.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    kle4 said:

    Mr Brind, if you are relying on Labour’s “ground war” to prevent “a landslide” you're buggered.

    But they have all those Corbynista new members to pound the streets.
    200K keyboard warriors pounding the streets on Google maps should do the trick...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,060
    SeanT said:

    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    Francis Pym got handbagged in 83 for pointing out that a large majority makes for bad government, not something Maggie wanted to hear.
    He was also totally wrong. Thatcher's sweeping majorities enabled her to transform the nation. Majorities of 8 or 17 would not.
    She used her narrow majority in 1979 well, and her massive one​ in 1983. How she used 1987 is a bit more debatable.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    I believe Labour should be prepared not to stand about 200 candidates [ obviously from the bottom ]. The actual number will be based on what arrangements can be found.

    There should be no explicit pact with any party but offers could be made or received on a case-by-case basis from Lib Dems, Greens and even the SNP.

    Where Labour has come second or a close third will not come up for discussion. So the local CLP should have no objections except there are enough nutters who will not accept this simple and common sense proposal.

    For example, if we do not put up a candidate in Richmond, Surrey the Liberals will have to step down somewhere else.

    SLAB may not like this proposal, but there are seats in Scotland NE where Labour votes however tiny could help the Tories win.

    There may not be a seat to concede to the Greens. I can't see where Greens are competing against the Tories.

    Literally insane. A pact with the SNP is a pact with a party which is 1. dedicated to the destruction of the UK, a dissolution which will, 2, make any future victory extremely difficult for Labour. The SNP despise you.

    You've lost it. Lie down.

    The SNP is a left of centre party.
    free prescriptions - for the middle class
    free university tuition - for the middle class

    Paid for by less access to higher education for the poorer and declining education standards.

    On what planet is that 'left of centre'?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    murali_s said:

    Sandpit said:

    murali_s said:

    Fishing said:

    "If you doubt that nastiness lives on in Toryland despite the election of the vicar’s daughter look no further than the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He is the attack dog whistled up by Lynton Crosby to spread a bit of ugliness."

    From the party of Alistair Campbell and Damien McBride, isn't that a bit rich?

    "I don’t always agree with Tim Farron but the Lib Dem leader is spot on when he tells voters “a Conservative landslide means they will take you for granted wherever you live.”"

    So a Labour landslide, as between 1997 and 2005, was a powerful mandate to implement constructive policies for a better Britain, while a Conservative landslide is a licence to be take for granted?

    All landslides are bad for democracy - full stop. In 1997, I was happy that Labour had won but wary of that huge majority.
    But if it's anything other than a reverse of 1997, will it be enough for the sensibles like yourself to kick out Corbyn and his fellow travellers from the party, and retake it with the wish to be a party of government once again?

    The Tories regrouped after '97, it took them a while but when the government faltered a decade later they had got themselves back into a winnable position.

    If the majority ends up being only 50 or 60, isn't it most likely that Corbyn puts the losses down to a lack of party unity, the Evil Blairites and the right-wing press, and carries on with the purge?

    So either you give the Tories a landslide or your party splits in half, which is it to be?
    Even with a Tory landslide, Corbyn will hang on and possibly win a leadership election.

    I really don't know how the centre-left can progress in this country. We have been defeated, not by the enemy but from within.
    I actually disagree. There is always room for a party advocating the distribution of profit more in favour of labour than capital.

    No doubt in 2032 or thereabouts we will have a change of government, once the current one has run its course. By then Brexit will be history, so the issues discussed will be very different.

    Maybe 2032 Labour will advocate a universal income, or annual land value tax. The important thing is (as we have observed again today) that the numbers add up, and proposals for additional spending are accompanied by genuine additional tax revenue.

    Of course, getting there means ditching Corbyn, his evil works and all he stands for, and reining in the Oxbridge Champagne socialists in favour of the average working man and woman. It will happen eventually, there are too many good people around who want to see it happen. Whether or not the Labour Party is the vehicle for the next centre-left government depends on what you collectively do on 8th and 9th June.
This discussion has been closed.