Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two years ago some Tories voted for Corbyn to become Labour le
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two years ago some Tories voted for Corbyn to become Labour leader to destroy the Labour party, you’ll never guess what happened next
Today is the second anniversary of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader, very few people could have imagined how things have turned out. Back in 2015 many observers, including myself, thought if Jeremy Corbyn led the Labour party at a general election, Labour would play the role of Alderaan to the Tory party’s Death Star. But at 10pm on June 8th 2017 all those perceptions changed.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Well, it was hardly going to be "Labour Front Benchers" for Corbyn, was it?
It's just not codified.
@dizzy_thinks: Dennis Skinner ...... Basically a Tory Melt now I guess?
Should he create a party in his image it will be a major achievement and a Labour Party that is significantly different to the one he took over.
That may be good or bad for labour.
Be careful what you wish for.
@AllieHBNews: Foreign Secretary @BorisJohnson is travelling to the Caribbean to visit British Overseas Territories devastated by #Irma.
Trust me says Theresa, after all, my judgement is infallible.
What you really mean is why aren't the political and legal obstacles to Leaving the EU insurmountable, as you wish they were.
Altering EU to UK or the name of an agency referred to so that it is relevant and a UK body not an EU body is sensible for the volume of changes required.
Changes to to essence, intent, scope or purpose of the Bill is not acceptable.
I agree with the basic sentiment in the thread header, but would add the fundamental problem was entirely different. Labour MPs failed to understand their own electoral system. That's the prime cause of having the far left in charge of the Official Opposition right now.
I cannot see the problem with giving these and other ministers virtually unlimited power to legislate as they wish with no Parliamentary scrutiny. We can trust them. Can't we.
Don't leave yourself open to a possibility you really, really do not want.
Mr. Observer, debatable. Labour promised a referendum, instead, there was no vote and Brown threw away vetoes to sign Lisbon. Blair threw away half the rebate for nothing. Cameron's renegotiation was an utter failure, compounded by his soon-abandoned claim it was a good deal.
It reminds me a bit of excessive foreign aid. Something popular amongst the political class, less so amongst the electorate.
Try reading Dicey
The powers are limited and the Govt are accountable.
If you dislike the outcome of the laws, you'll be able to change them if your lot get in.
Unlike the EU laws
Tories4Corbyn made no difference to the overall outcome, but they did manage to contribute to the Labour party's coffers... For that they have my thanks.
The unwritten British constitution that was being debated down below relies heavily on precedent. The legislation that was put before the Commons last night is constitutionally significant for that reason. It frightens the life out of me.
What we have now is a system with a proven record of producing deeply flawed governments incapable of addressing the political, social and economic challenges we face.
The establishment of the EU gave a larger stage for politicians to strut and pose on thus feeding their egos and satisfying their need for self aggrandisement. Similarly, the larger the aid budget, the more opportunity to bask in foreign praise.
A perfect example of these behaviours is with Blair.
Very little of what politicians do on an international stage is for the direct benefit of their country,only themselves.
For anyone who harboured the thought that rather than face 'cliff-edge' Brexit politicians would draw back from the brink, forget it.
Ladies and gents, the future of the left. Guffaw.
Oh, wait.....
And listened to by no-one....
The world is indeed upside down.
Given they're called 'Henry VIII powers' don't you think they might have a bit of 'precedent' already?
(Hailsham's Dimbleby Lecture is worth reading if you haven't already)
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
The principle that Parliamentis sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successors means constitutions have less effect in the UK
Islington worst place in the UK for women to live
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/worst-place-in-the-uk-for-women-to-live-revealed-by-study/ar-AArJPCq?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
The Repeal Bill: The angle-grinder they said they needed.
Macron strike day - unions hit the streets in France
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2017/09/12/20002-20170912LIVWWW00051-reforme-code-travail-emmanuel-macron-syndicats-salaries-patronat-cgt-indemnites-licenciements-negociations.php
Top quality ScottnPasting there.
On your other point, no the ends don't justify the means. But politicians are largely irrelevant to outcomes. My mentor served in government for 40 years (and at cabinet rank for 30) and said that in that time there were only 3 important decisions made - in one there was no choice, in one the best course was obvious and on one he had no influence.